Jump to content

IS "SCIENCE" THE "NEW RELIGION"?


BIGDAN

Recommended Posts

That's right everything around us is based on what our conscious minds perceive to be around us. Everthing we see, hear and feel is channelled through our minds. Scientists can't offer a full explanation for why our conscious minds exist in the first place or whether we're the only beings on earth who are aware of our consciousness. I personally believe that some animals are also aware of this, for example dolphins which, like us, have the ability of commit suicide when they're severely distressed. However, consciousness and intelligence doesn't necessarily mean there being is a supreme being. I'm sure science will one day be able to offer an explanation.

It is impossible that these creatures don't have some sense of Self in the same sense we humans do.

Look also into elephant graveyards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

For starters, "global warming" is not a political scare. Although, admittedly, Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was a crock of shit, we did horrendously speed up a natural climate shift through car exhaust, factories, and so on. Obviously it's impossible to stop it, but it is entirely possible to stop any further damage. Using alternate forms of energy, recycling, giving up plastics, stop decimating forests for wood, and so on. We start changing lifestyles now, we may have just long enough to adapt to the changes.

Now, yes, politicians have used science to scare, but that's politics, not science. And besides... fear can occasionally (as in: rarely) be a good thing.

For another, one doesn't need deities for a religion? Really? That is, in fact, the dividing line between a philosophy and a religion... whether or not there are higher powers (or just one higher power). BigDan, if I may ask... how do you define "religion"? I hope you're not as loose as my dad (a Conservative Jewish Hazzan), who's definition of religion would include college Greek Life, rallies around a cause, Workers' Unions... even school classes.

If a religion requires dogma, then science doesn't have one. If religion requires unquestioning devotion to "guiding principles", you will never find such a thing in science.

Why? Because science is led by skepticism, which is led by evidence. Observable, empirical, tangible, understandable evidence.

I do not mean to offend, but there's a a popular saying which differentiates religion and science. I'm paraphrasing here, but this is sort of what it says: "science has questions that may never be answered. Religion has answers that are never questioned."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

For starters, "global warming" is not a political scare. Although, admittedly, Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was a crock of shit, we did horrendously speed up a natural climate shift through car exhaust, factories, and so on. Obviously it's impossible to stop it, but it is entirely possible to stop any further damage. Using alternate forms of energy, recycling, giving up plastics, stop decimating forests for wood, and so on. We start changing lifestyles now, we may have just long enough to adapt to the changes.

Now, yes, politicians have used science to scare, but that's politics, not science. And besides... fear can occasionally (as in: rarely) be a good thing.

For another, one doesn't need deities for a religion? Really? That is, in fact, the dividing line between a philosophy and a religion... whether or not there are higher powers (or just one higher power). BigDan, if I may ask... how do you define "religion"? I hope you're not as loose as my dad (a Conservative Jewish Hazzan), who's definition of religion would include college Greek Life, rallies around a cause, Workers' Unions... even school classes.

If a religion requires dogma, then science doesn't have one. If religion requires unquestioning devotion to "guiding principles", you will never find such a thing in science.

Why? Because science is led by skepticism, which is led by evidence. Observable, empirical, tangible, understandable evidence.

I do not mean to offend, but there's a a popular saying which differentiates religion and science. I'm paraphrasing here, but this is sort of what it says: "science has questions that may never be answered. Religion has answers that are never questioned."

I'm pretty much a tree-hugger, but I am not convinced of the antropomorphic etiology of global warming. Anyhow. At the current rate of consumption, we'll burn off the 4 billion years worth of hydrocarbon deposits in a couple centuries, and it will no longer be an issue. In geological time, that's a flash in the pan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigDan, if I may ask... how do you define "religion"? I hope you're not as loose as my dad (a Conservative Jewish Hazzan), who's definition of religion would include college Greek Life, rallies around a cause, Workers' Unions... even school classes.

Hi Nathan,

Basically this,

Religion Equates to Me as, "Belief Without Proof"

Science Equates to Me as, "Knowledge"

Art Equates to Me as, "Performing"

I have Studied both Ju Jitsu and Wing Chun as a "Science" and as an "Art Form" for over 25 years, and i can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that by doing that you can come to realise the True Meaning of the "Yin and Yang" Philosophy. The Art of the Science.

What i was trying to do in this Topic was to discuss how the Use of Scientific Data is being used in the same way as Religion once Used the Fear of God to persuade its adherents to Behave in a way that had no Truth or Fact, only Belief. They would say just that God was displeased with the way they were living their lives and so create an atmosphere of Irrational Fear based on Belief rather than Fact. I Believe that this is being done by Our Governments of today with the Scientists that are in their Pay, and disregarding other Scientific data that disagrees with them. I believe that Science has become Dogmatic in many ways, but i still believe in its Truth's, i wish i could say the same for its Scientists.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nathan,

Basically this,

Religion Equates to Me as, "Belief Without Proof"

Science Equates to Me as, "Knowledge"

Art Equates to Me as, "Performing"

I agree with religion and art, but I do not agree with your view of science. Science is the gaining of knowledge, but through empirical evidence. There is a reason there are rules on what science is. Astrology was once considered science. And could you imagine a world where Homeopathy, or worse, Faith-healing, was considered legitimate science? *shudders*

Keep in mind that similar crap was once considered science. I believe that period of human history is known as "The Dark Ages".

I have Studied both Ju Jitsu and Wing Chun as a "Science" and as an "Art Form" for over 25 years, and i can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that by doing that you can come to realise the True Meaning of the "Yin and Yang" Philosophy. The Art of the Science.

I have to disagree here. I honestly have no idea what you mean by "science" in this context. Ju Jitsu and Wing Chun are not science at all. I am not saying they are not legitimate practices, nor am I suggest that because they are not science, they are worthless. My Dad took Ju Jitsu and I have considered it and, in fact, still do (amongst many other martial arts forms). The only thing stopping me from training in such is a lack of money and time. I would, otherwise... in a heartbeat. I even enjoy meditation and, yes, prayer (as a form of meditation). Obviously I don't think I'm "connecting to a higher power". It's more just for relaxation and coming to terms with myself.

But I don't see how any of that can be "studied as a science". What hypotheses are you testing? How are you testing them? Is there peer review?

What i was trying to do in this Topic was to discuss how the Use of Scientific Data is being used in the same way as Religion once Used the Fear of God to persuade its adherents to Behave in a way that had no Truth or Fact, only Belief. They would say just that God was displeased with the way they were living their lives and so create an atmosphere of Irrational Fear based on Belief rather than Fact. I Believe that this is being done by Our Governments of today with the Scientists that are in their Pay, and disregarding other Scientific data that disagrees with them. I believe that Science has become Dogmatic in many ways, but i still believe in its Truth's, i wish i could say the same for its Scientists.

Regards, Danny

I know. Hence why I mentioned politics. You would have a slightly stronger case if you asked "is politics the new religion". I would actually agree that in many cases it certainly seems that way, although it fails due to the lack of political worship (which is also missing in science, BTW). Science is benign. It's only as good or as bad as the people using it.

Again, Al Gore's movie was total shit. But Anthropogenic Climate Change is, in fact, very real, and it is high time we stopped using our planet as if it was filled with unlimited renewable resources. The Earth is alive, and the last thing we want for our descendants is for them to be born onto a dead, dirty, dry planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Dan and Nathan!!! You two should get along famously!!! Two very great thinkers and very articulate in your observations. Some of these matters I have learned are just too frustrating to get into extended debates over. Give it a go guys!! You both do a fine job! If you can either solve the myseries of the universe or better yet a Zepp reunion, drop me a line!!! Back to it! Carry on!!! And so I am not accused of going off topic, I will answer the question of the topic question in one word. NO!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with religion and art, but I do not agree with your view of science. Science is the gaining of knowledge, but through empirical evidence. There is a reason there are rules on what science is. Astrology was once considered science. And could you imagine a world where Homeopathy, or worse, Faith-healing, was considered legitimate science? *shudders*

Keep in mind that similar crap was once considered science. I believe that period of human history is known as "The Dark Ages".

Hi 'Nathan'

I have seen Homeopathy work, but i would not call it a Science as yet, there needs to be much more Proof that what is being observed really works, much of it does but not all.

In the Martial Arts World there are Energies that are used for healing called "Chi" and "Ki", i have observed both of theses in action and i cannot doubt the people that i have seen use them. "Faith Healing" is much the same, i am very sceptical of it but it appears to work for some people. I cant say that it belongs in Science but one day when Science can examine it under more scrutiny who knows what or how it will be judged?

I have to disagree here. I honestly have no idea what you mean by "science" in this context. Ju Jitsu and Wing Chun are not science at all. I am not saying they are not legitimate practices, nor am I suggest that because they are not science, they are worthless. My Dad took Ju Jitsu and I have considered it and, in fact, still do (amongst many other martial arts forms). The only thing stopping me from training in such is a lack of money and time. I would, otherwise... in a heartbeat. I even enjoy meditation and, yes, prayer (as a form of meditation). Obviously I don't think I'm "connecting to a higher power". It's more just for relaxation and coming to terms with myself.

Thats because you have no understanding of Martial Arts, The "Knowledge" is the "Science" behind them, the "Art" is the Physical Ability to show your Understanding of the "Science".

But I don't see how any of that can be "studied as a science". What hypotheses are you testing? How are you testing them? Is there peer review?

Science is Knowledge, that's all i have to say, if you really cant understand that then you need to get involved in something for yourself.

I know. Hence why I mentioned politics. You would have a slightly stronger case if you asked "is politics the new religion". I would actually agree that in many cases it certainly seems that way, although it fails due to the lack of political worship (which is also missing in science, BTW). Science is benign. It's only as good or as bad as the people using it.

You have not understood what i was trying to explain, either because you Cannot Understand or because you don't want to Understand, but I'm not going to get involved in semantics and arguing again.

Again, Al Gore's movie was total shit. But Anthropogenic Climate Change is, in fact, very real, and it is high time we stopped using our planet as if it was filled with unlimited renewable resources. The Earth is alive, and the last thing we want for our descendants is for them to be born onto a dead, dirty, dry planet.

That WILL happen, either with or without "Man Made Global Warming"

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi 'Nathan'

I have seen Homeopathy work, but i would not call it a Science as yet, there needs to be much more Proof that what is being observed really works, much of it does but not all.

What you saw was the placebo effect. Homeopathy is a joke.

Your post reminds me of the argument we were having in the marijuana thread. Anecdotal evidence is almost completely worthless, but you keep using it to support your arguments.

That WILL happen, either with or without "Man Made Global Warming"

And we WILL all die someday, but that doesn't mean we should all stop brushing our teeth, stop bathing, start abusing drugs, start drinking heavily, and start eating nothing but fast food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you saw was the placebo effect. Homeopathy is a joke.

Really, i was right in the first place then, you need a few more decades to fill your brain with as much information as you can then and only then can you judge something that you appear to know nothing about, i thought we could communicate in some way but it appears i was wrong, enough.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, i was right in the first place then, you need a few more decades to fill your brain with as much information as you can then and only then can you judge something that you appear to know nothing about, i thought we could communicate in some way but it appears i was wrong, enough.

Regards, Danny

I actually know a lot about homeopathy. I downed 100 homeopathic sleeping pills at the beginning of a speech I gave detailing exactly why it's bullshit.

Here's the outline of my speech:

1. Homeopathy was invented about two hundred years ago when scientific medicine was in its infancy.

2. Homeopathy's inventor thought that like cured like, and dilution made his medicine stronger.

a. If something produced negative symptoms in a healthy person, he thought it would cure those same symptoms in a sick person.

b. Homeopaths believe that the more dilute something is, the more effective it is as a treatment.

i. Often, none of the original substance remains

c. Neither of these theories has any basis in science.

3. Even though there isn't any active medicine in homeopathic remedies, some people get better after taking them.

a. This can be attributed to the placebo effect, which can be very powerful.

4. The majority of the evidence shows that homeopathy is no better than a placebo.

a. Some studies support homeopathy, but most do not.

b. The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology did a study of studies and concluded those in support of homeopathy were the result of bad science.

Do you disagree with any of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post reminds me of the argument we were having in the marijuana thread. Anecdotal evidence is almost completely worthless, but you keep using it to support your arguments.

And you remind me of a Troll.

Why don't you Stop your incessant attacks on almost everything i write? yet you put nothing constructive towards the Topic except insult and negativity, your so intelligent and knowledgeable ah, then lets see it.

Can you post some contradicting evidence that supports your insults and lets see if it holds up to MY scrutiny?

There is more than enough evidence both for and against these subjects for you to post on, so why don't you do it? instead of giving my argument credence that some Scientists (like what you are pretending to be) are acting in a way similar to adherents of some Religious Sect that has nothing to say but thinks that if it says it loudly enough all will bow and believe.

Get Real, Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually know a lot about homeopathy. I downed 100 homeopathic sleeping pills at the beginning of a speech I gave detailing exactly why it's bullshit.

Here's the outline of my speech:

Do you disagree with any of that?

YES I DO.

But i have no wish to engage in intercourse with you about anything anymore, i don't like the way you talk to me and i don't like your tone, i was wrong to have thought that my first impression of you might be wrong, because it wasn't, enough i say, enough.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I made some decent points (which you haven't addressed), and I wasn't aware I was insulting you. Sorry.

Too little too late, you left the gate open and now the horse has bolted, i did warn you before but you took no heed of my advice, auf Wiedersehen, Adios, Au revoir.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi 'Nathan'

I have seen Homeopathy work, but i would not call it a Science as yet, there needs to be much more Proof that what is being observed really works, much of it does but not all.

So have I. I've also seen sugar pills work. All it proves is that homeopathy's about as good as a placebo.

I also have a problem with the idea that water has memory (which is the basis of homeopathy). If water has memory, then how is it that water can remember, you know, tiny droplets of medicine, but forgets all about the fish poop, pee, semen, dead, decaying bodies, blood, etc?

I would like to point out that I'm not trying to be mean or insulting, so please forgive me if you take it that way. I'm not a fan of Alt. Med at all. I've read too many stories and have too many personal experiences (with friends, and once with myself) to have any positive feelings about the industry. The only things I see in this "industry" are lies, false info, and snake-oil salesmen. People (like Deepak Chopra) praying on the... gullibility... of other people, and stealing their hard-earned money, selling them crap that will never actually help them.

In the Martial Arts World there are Energies that are used for healing called "Chi" and "Ki", i have observed both of theses in action and i cannot doubt the people that i have seen use them. "Faith Healing" is much the same, i am very sceptical of it but it appears to work for some people. I cant say that it belongs in Science but one day when Science can examine it under more scrutiny who knows what or how it will be judged?

Personal experience with faith-healing:

A friend of mine, when he was very young, was diagnosed with cancer. His parents, being ultra-radical Christians, refused to take him to the hospital, instead taking him to their pastor who "prayed" over him trying to "expel Satan's demons". His aunt (on his Dad's side) ended up kidnapping him to get him to the hospital. They did manage to save him, but had she waited one more day it would have been his death warrant. His parents did take her court, but, luckily, the aunt (and her husband, his uncle) won... they have custody of him and he refuses to even acknowledge that his birth parents exist... and yes, he's a staunch atheist and anti-theist.

That, my friend, is the outcome of "faith-heeling".

Here's some more stories:

Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death

Parents In Faith Healing Death Arrested

Another Faith Healing Death

Charges follow faith-healing death

Not only do I not believe in it, but I think parents who refuse their sick children modern medical help and instead take them to pastors to be prayed over should be arrested for endangering their child's life.

Thats because you have no understanding of Martial Arts, The "Knowledge" is the "Science" behind them, the "Art" is the Physical Ability to show your Understanding of the "Science".

Science is Knowledge, that's all i have to say, if you really cant understand that then you need to get involved in something for yourself.

a. There's no need to get defensive. I'm not trying to insult you and if I did, I apologize. I'm simply giving my point of view.

b. We're arguing semantics. We obviously use two different definitions and that's fine. I'd be happy to agree to disagree on this point. :)

You have not understood what i was trying to explain, either because you Cannot Understand or because you don't want to Understand, but I'm not going to get involved in semantics and arguing again.

No, I understood it perfectly. I was merely pointing out that politics seems, to me, at least, to be more of a suspect here rather than science. That's all. :)

I actually know a lot about homeopathy. I downed 100 homeopathic sleeping pills at the beginning of a speech I gave detailing exactly why it's bullshit.

Here's the outline of my speech:

Do you disagree with any of that?

Are you, or do you know, Randy James?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding martial arts, it's not science. I've spent over a decade in martial arts, and I'm a huge MMA fan (just look at my name), so that old "lack of personal experience" argument won't work in this case.

Of course if we redefine the word science, then you could make the case, but if we're going to redefine words to suit our preconceptions, why even have words in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So have I. I've also seen sugar pills work. All it proves is that homeopathy's about as good as a placebo.

I also have a problem with the idea that water has memory (which is the basis of homeopathy). If water has memory, then how is it that water can remember, you know, tiny droplets of medicine, but forgets all about the fish poop, pee, semen, dead, decaying bodies, blood, etc?

I would like to point out that I'm not trying to be mean or insulting, so please forgive me if you take it that way. I'm not a fan of Alt. Med at all. I've read too many stories and have too many personal experiences (with friends, and once with myself) to have anyonly things I see in this "industry" are lies, false info, and snake-oil salesmen. People (like Deepak Chopra) praying on the... gullibility... of other people, and stealing their hard-earned money, selling them crap that will never actually help them.

Personal experience with faith-healing:

A friend of mine, when he was very young, was diagnosed with cancer. His parents, being ultra-radical Christians, refused to take him to the hospital, instead taking him to their pastor who "prayed" over him trying to "expel Satan's demons". His aunt (on his Dad's side) ended up kidnapping him to get him to the hospital. They did manage to save him, but had she waited one more day it would have been his death warrant. His parents did take her court, but, luckily, the aunt (and her husband, his uncle) won... they have custody of him and he refuses to even acknowledge that his birth parents exist... and yes, he's a staunch atheist and anti-theist.

That, my friend, is the outcome of "faith-heeling".

Here's some more stories:

Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death

Parents In Faith Healing Death Arrested

Another Faith Healing Death

Charges follow faith-healing death

Not only do I not believe in it, but I think parents who refuse their sick children modern medical help and instead take them to pastors to be prayed over should be arrested for endangering their child's life.

a. There's no need to get defensive. I'm not trying to insult you and if I did, I apologize. I'm simply giving my point of view.

b. We're arguing semantics. We obviously use two different definitions and that's fine. I'd be happy to agree to disagree on this point. :)

No, I understood it perfectly. I was merely pointing out that politics seems, to me, at least, to be more of a suspect here rather than science. That's all. :)

Hi Nathan,

If Homeopathy is bogus then i wont argue with you or anyone else about it, i have no direct involvement with it, never had, i just knew someone who had a good experience with it.

Ki and Chi are not faith healing, they are energies that can be used for healing, this i have witnessed and received first hand so i have knowledge of them. They can also be used for attack and defence, if you don't believe me then find someone who practices them and feel the difference in their punches and kicks, you wont ask again i assure you.

I would always use Scientific medicine first, but if that fails then i will use whatever is at hand, Aromatherapy is one i have dabbled in with good effect. Science does not know everything and cannot cure everything, even now in the UK our National Health is allowing other types of healing to be used. Why? because it can work. Eastern Medicine from China and Japan have been poo pooed for years by Scientists, why? because pharmaceutical companies can control the market and make an exorbitant profit, another reason to question the Scientists and their paymasters.

I get you take on Politics and its involvement in both Religion and Science and I'll have a rethink and get back to you if i come up with anything.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Whom it may concern.

Science=Knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

"Introduction

The study of martial arts is the study of physics as it relates to the human body. The various types of martial art evolved as different approaches to the same problem - what is the most effective way of using the body to defend and attack? We shouldn't be surprised to find that the most effective methods of blocking and striking, perfected over hundreds of years, use the laws of physics to maximum effect."

http://www.kungfusci....org/access.asp

The Sensi who taught Me Martial Arts was himself designated a Professor in Ju Jitsu and Wing Chun.

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge = knowledge. If science was just knowledge, why would we bother calling it science? Knowledge is part of science, but science is more than just knowledge. From the link you posted: science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. No martial art that I'm aware of fits that definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge = knowledge. If science was just knowledge, why would we bother calling it science? Knowledge is part of science, but science is more than just knowledge. From the link you posted: science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. No martial art that I'm aware of fits that definition.

Try this then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28disambiguation%29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Randi fan. He was the inspiration for that speech. I cited him before I even downed the pills.

Ah okay. I'm a Randi fan as well. I'm a member of his forum and everything, although I post very rarely there. If you're a member, my member-name there is NateHevens, and I started threads on the TempurPedic mattress, Electronic Cigarettes, and Tube Amps (guitar). I love the threads and stuff there debunking audiophile myths... they're brilliant.

Regarding martial arts, it's not science. I've spent over a decade in martial arts, and I'm a huge MMA fan (just look at my name), so that old "lack of personal experience" argument won't work in this case.

Of course if we redefine the word science, then you could make the case, but if we're going to redefine words to suit our preconceptions, why even have words in the first place?

I have to agree with you, here. I view science as the only clearly legitimate tool we have to study the natural world and universe, and I'm not sure how Martial Arts fits into that category.

Hi Nathan,

If Homeopathy is bogus then i wont argue with you or anyone else about it, i have no direct involvement with it, never had, i just knew someone who had a good experience with it.

I have, too, as I've said, but I've also seen someone get better on nothing more than a sugar pill. Placebos do work... otherwise they wouldn't be used as controls when testing new medicines. They just don't work often enough to merit being a legitimate cure.

I would say it is bogus, although my advice to you would be to research it, if you want. Look it up and see what people are saying, both the critics and the believers. In fact, if you want, search for homeopathy at Google Scholar. You should get a host of scientific articles and papers about it.

Ki and Chi are not faith healing, they are energies that can be used for healing, this i have witnessed and received first hand so i have knowledge of them. They can also be used for attack and defence, if you don't believe me then find someone who practices them and feel the difference in their punches and kicks, you wont ask again i assure you.

I apologize. I actually missed your line about Ki and Chi and my note about faith-healing was strictly about faith-healing, not Ki and Chi.

I reserve judgment on Ki and Chi as I have no direct or indirect experience with either, so you could say I'm agnostic about them. I have to do more research before I can decide whether or not I consider them legit. I do have to say that I saw an episode of Time Warp involving an energy the Samurai believe in, and one of the hosts got a direct experience with it. Now I don't know about any supernatural experience or whatnot, but the host was certainly effected by something when the samurai merely lightly pushed him into a chair (that was, BTW, a really horrible description of what I saw... heh... :blush:).

But I reserve judgment on those barring further research and experience of my own I admit that I am always a skeptic and am always skeptical, but I'm also reasonable and refuse to dismiss claims unless I know enough about them to be able to dismiss them. I cannot dismiss Ki and Chi because I don't have the experience and knowledge I require to make any judgment.

I would always use Scientific medicine first, but if that fails then i will use whatever is at hand, Aromatherapy is one i have dabbled in with good effect. Science does not know everything and cannot cure everything, even now in the UK our National Health is allowing other types of healing to be used. Why? because it can work. Eastern Medicine from China and Japan have been poo pooed for years by Scientists, why? because pharmaceutical companies can control the market and make an exorbitant profit, another reason to question the Scientists and their paymasters.

The problem I have with this view is that science has a control built into it to avoid such bias: the peer review process.

The whole deal with the peer review process is this: a scientist is paid to prove that something works: let's say, a new type of medicine. He tests the hypothesis, and let's say he proves it. He then submits the scientific paper he writes for publishing. But for most journals it does not automatically get published.

The paper is sent to hundreds of scientists, all of whom have absolutely zero stake in the outcome of the test (they're not being paid for this "cure" to be proven or disproven, and for some, they may not have even known what it was or that it was being tested until they were picked as part of the peer review process), who then perform the same test outlined in the paper as well as numerous other different tests. More often than not, the peer review process makes this original scientist look like an idiot, and the other scientists make no bones about saying such.

That, BTW, is why you'll rarely if ever see an alt. med paper (such as a test on homeopathy done by "scientists" who already expect it to work) submitted for peer review. That paper will usually get torn to shreds.

An absolutely brilliant example of the peer review process at work destroying bias is the case of something that, for a little while, at least, was touted as "the missing link" in human evolution. Darwinius Masillae, nicknamed Ida, was discovered in Germany and first heavily reported in May of 2009. Here's some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius

http://www.revealingthelink.com/

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0005723

Curiously enough, the findings were not immediately submitted for peer review as is usual. The reason? Because Ida is no missing link:

http://www.scientifi...ossil-darwinius

http://blogs.abcnews...g-link-not.html

https://webspace.ute...al_JHE_2010.pdf

http://scienceblogs....us_masillae.php

http://scienceblogs....issing_link.php

http://richarddawkin...ropologists-say

(It should be noted that this idea of "the missing link" is entirely arbitrary and not scientific... it could be argued that all fossils are transitional fossils/missing links, and even all currently living creatures, including ourselves, are the same.)

I must admit it is somewhat of a shame to see the peer review process done so publicly, but it also beautifully highlights how science can weed out bias.

Once alternative medicine crap like homeopathy starts subjecting itself to this same type of scrutiny, I may be able to start gaining a little respect for it. Until then... no.

I get you take on Politics and its involvement in both Religion and Science and I'll have a rethink and get back to you if i come up with anything.

Regards, Danny

I look forward to it. :)

To Whom it may concern.

Science=Knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

"Introduction

The study of martial arts is the study of physics as it relates to the human body. The various types of martial art evolved as different approaches to the same problem - what is the most effective way of using the body to defend and attack? We shouldn't be surprised to find that the most effective methods of blocking and striking, perfected over hundreds of years, use the laws of physics to maximum effect."

http://www.kungfusci....org/access.asp

The Sensi who taught Me Martial Arts was himself designated a Professor in Ju Jitsu and Wing Chun.

Regards, Danny

Oh I see where you're coming from, now, BIGDAN. We are definitely experiencing a semantic issue, here. I don't define science in the same way you do, therefore martial arts doesn't fall under science as I see it. Obviously, that's different for you, and I respect that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you, here. I view science as the only clearly legitimate tool we have to study the natural world and universe, and I'm not sure how Martial Arts fits into that category.

I have, too, as I've said, but I've also seen someone get better on nothing more than a sugar pill. Placebos do work... otherwise they wouldn't be used as controls when testing new medicines. They just don't work often enough to merit being a legitimate cure.

I would say it is bogus, although my advice to you would be to research it, if you want. Look it up and see what people are saying, both the critics and the believers. In fact, if you want, search for homeopathy at Google Scholar. You should get a host of scientific articles and papers about it.

I apologize. I actually missed your line about Ki and Chi and my note about faith-healing was strictly about faith-healing, not Ki and Chi.

I reserve judgment on Ki and Chi as I have no direct or indirect experience with either, so you could say I'm agnostic about them. I have to do more research before I can decide whether or not I consider them legit. I do have to say that I saw an episode of Time Warp involving an energy the Samurai believe in, and one of the hosts got a direct experience with it. Now I don't know about any supernatural experience or whatnot, but the host was certainly effected by something when the samurai merely lightly pushed him into a chair (that was, BTW, a really horrible description of what I saw... heh... :blush:).

But I reserve judgment on those barring further research and experience of my own I admit that I am always a skeptic and am always skeptical, but I'm also reasonable and refuse to dismiss claims unless I know enough about them to be able to dismiss them. I cannot dismiss Ki and Chi because I don't have the experience and knowledge I require to make any judgment.

The problem I have with this view is that science has a control built into it to avoid such bias: the peer review process.

The whole deal with the peer review process is this: a scientist is paid to prove that something works: let's say, a new type of medicine. He tests the hypothesis, and let's say he proves it. He then submits the scientific paper he writes for publishing. But for most journals it does not automatically get published.

The paper is sent to hundreds of scientists, all of whom have absolutely zero stake in the outcome of the test (they're not being paid for this "cure" to be proven or disproven, and for some, they may not have even known what it was or that it was being tested until they were picked as part of the peer review process), who then perform the same test outlined in the paper as well as numerous other different tests. More often than not, the peer review process makes this original scientist look like an idiot, and the other scientists make no bones about saying such.

That, BTW, is why you'll rarely if ever see an alt. med paper (such as a test on homeopathy done by "scientists" who already expect it to work) submitted for peer review. That paper will usually get torn to shreds.

An absolutely brilliant example of the peer review process at work destroying bias is the case of something that, for a little while, at least, was touted as "the missing link" in human evolution. Darwinius Masillae, nicknamed Ida, was discovered in Germany and first heavily reported in May of 2009. Here's some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius

http://www.revealingthelink.com/

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0005723

Curiously enough, the findings were not immediately submitted for peer review as is usual. The reason? Because Ida is no missing link:

http://www.scientifi...ossil-darwinius

http://blogs.abcnews...g-link-not.html

https://webspace.ute...al_JHE_2010.pdf

http://scienceblogs....us_masillae.php

http://scienceblogs....issing_link.php

http://richarddawkin...ropologists-say

(It should be noted that this idea of "the missing link" is entirely arbitrary and not scientific... it could be argued that all fossils are transitional fossils/missing links, and even all currently living creatures, including ourselves, are the same.)

I must admit it is somewhat of a shame to see the peer review process done so publicly, but it also beautifully highlights how science can weed out bias.

Once alternative medicine crap like homeopathy starts subjecting itself to this same type of scrutiny, I may be able to start gaining a little respect for it. Until then... no.

I look forward to it. :)

Oh I see where you're coming from, now, BIGDAN. We are definitely experiencing a semantic issue, here. I don't define science in the same way you do, therefore martial arts doesn't fall under science as I see it. Obviously, that's different for you, and I respect that. :)

Hi Nathan,

And thanks, you have given me a lot to study, all of which i will take my time over.

I don't define Science either, but i believe that there is more than one Science, in fact many. The Science of This or the Science of That, that's why i and many other people in the Martial Arts World believe that The Martial Arts are a Science, because it is Measurable, because it conforms too and uses Physics, because it is Whole. We may see it differently but that's what makes for a thrilling debate don't you think?

Regards, Danny

PS, The thing that astounded me when i first started to be initiated in to the world of Ju Jitsu is how it provides Harmony (Balance) between the physical and spiritual worlds, i suppose what I'm trying to say is that it gives meaning in a Physical, Mental and Spiritual way that i had not expected or experienced before or since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah okay. I'm a Randi fan as well. I'm a member of his forum and everything, although I post very rarely there. If you're a member, my member-name there is NateHevens, and I started threads on the TempurPedic mattress, Electronic Cigarettes, and Tube Amps (guitar). I love the threads and stuff there debunking audiophile myths... they're brilliant.

No. I didn't even know he had a forum. I'm a fan of his from hearing him on podcasts. I went ahead and signed up and put in your name as the person who referred me to the forum. I'm going to check out that tube amp thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...