View Full Version : Science as Defacement of Reason


Kunga Dorji
07-15-14, 11:02 PM
Good article- covering many old debates we have had on the forum.

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/06/science-as-defacement-of-reason.html

The article is very much directed at certain hard headed "scientific materialists"-and is not an indictment of science as a whole.

Abi
07-16-14, 10:56 AM
I am a proud scientific materialist :)

Fuzzy12
07-16-14, 11:11 AM
What is "Science-as-you-know-it"?

Once I understand that I might understand the rest of the article. :scratch:

aeon
07-16-14, 03:29 PM
Excellent article, thanks for that. I fully agree.

There are things yet to be known about the nature of consciousness. Science-as-we-know-it will not reveal these things.

But we go forth as if that basic work is done, running around blind, unwilling to open our eyes, and indeed, higher aspects of being, all because we think we have the answers to questions we never asked or imagined to begin with.

It should be remembered that Scientific Materialism is but a perspective - a valid one to explore, certainly - but one amongst many others also worthy of exploration and inquiry.

One tends to see that which one believes.

It leads to the folly of describing Love as a chemical reaction, emotional response, and mental construct.

Nay, it is none of these things.

Take a moment to be aware of your body, your feelings, and your thoughts. Now that you have done this, I ask, who is the "you" that was aware of these things?

Science-as-we-know-it cannot answer even this simple question, but it presumes to understand the universe.

And a funny word uni-verse is, given science-as-we-know-it's whorish and obscene fascination with the idea of cause-and-effect.

Uni-verse is outside of subject and object, this and that.

Beyond thing-ness and no-thing-ness, yet science-as-we-know-it tries to count the things, and note the forms, and arrange them by color and all manner of criteria.

Sometimes I think we have forgotten far more than we have ever learned.

To understand is not to know.

Science-as-we-know-it thinks otherwise.

We are wandering, wounded and lost.

Kunga Dorji
07-16-14, 05:58 PM
Excellent article, thanks for that. I fully agree.

There are things yet to be known about the nature of consciousness. Science-as-we-know-it will not reveal these things.

But we go forth as if that basic work is done, running around blind, unwilling to open our eyes, and indeed, higher aspects of being, all because we think we have the answers to questions we never asked or imagined to begin with.

It should be remembered that Scientific Materialism is but a perspective - a valid one to explore, certainly - but one amongst many others also worthy of exploration and inquiry.

One tends to see that which one believes.

It leads to the folly of describing Love as a chemical reaction, emotional response, and mental construct.

Nay, it is none of these things.

Take a moment to be aware of your body, your feelings, and your thoughts. Now that you have done this, I ask, who is the "you" that was aware of these things?

Science-as-we-know-it cannot answer even this simple question, but it presumes to understand the universe.

And a funny word uni-verse is, given science-as-we-know-it's whorish and obscene fascination with the idea of cause-and-effect.

Uni-verse is outside of subject and object, this and that.

Beyond thing-ness and no-thing-ness, yet science-as-we-know-it tries to count the things, and note the forms, and arrange them by color and all manner of criteria.

Sometimes I think we have forgotten far more than we have ever learned.

To understand is not to know.

Science-as-we-know-it thinks otherwise.

We are wandering, wounded and lost.

Good response, it ties in somewhat with an article I have been reading about the ego's aversion to uncertainty and ambiguity.
The article is referring to interpersonal relationships-- but I thnk the issue here isthe ambiguity and uncertainty of the world.http://realitysandwich.com/220825/dealing-with-ambivalence-and-ambiguity/

In any case the aggressive materialism of hard heads like Dawkins, and Stephen Novella (and side kick Harriet Hall) does have a corrosive effect and it does paint the worthy scientific effort in a bad light.

eclectic beagle
07-16-14, 06:40 PM
Excellent article, thanks for that. I fully agree.
There are things yet to be known about the nature of consciousness. Science-as-we-know-it will not reveal these things.


I know you used the caveat of "as we know it", but it seems impossible to say definitively whether or not that will be the case.

daveddd
07-16-14, 06:55 PM
Good response, it ties in somewhat with an article I have been reading about the ego's aversion to uncertainty and ambiguity.
The article is referring to interpersonal relationships-- but I thnk the issue here isthe ambiguity and uncertainty of the world.http://realitysandwich.com/220825/dealing-with-ambivalence-and-ambiguity/

In any case the aggressive materialism of hard heads like Dawkins, and Stephen Novella (and side kick Harriet Hall) does have a corrosive effect and it does paint the worthy scientific effort in a bad light.

its depressing psychology has moved backwards from this type of stuff

we are finding out with mindfulness about these things


pierre janets model of dissociation from over 100 years ago, Rorschach's affectively stored scenes theory from the 50s, even freuds repression theory will tell me much more about my psyche than todays , whatever they're saying now, stuff

eclectic beagle
07-16-14, 07:04 PM
its depressing psychology has moved backwards from this type of stuff

we are finding out with mindfulness about these things


pierre janets model of dissociation from over 100 years ago, Rorschach's affectively stored scenes theory from the 50s, even freuds repression theory will tell me much more about my psyche than todays , whatever they're saying now, stuff


I think it's also that the various psych sub-fields or neuroscience sub-fields don't always adequately communicate with each other. Communication between the various branches sometimes seems archaic.

daveddd
07-16-14, 07:10 PM
I think it's also that the various psych sub-fields or neuroscience sub-fields don't always adequately communicate with each other. Communication between the two sometimes seems archaic.

absolutely

everything has its place

like aeon said I've grown tired of "our" (adhd) psychic lives being reduced to chemical reactions, and terms like hyper focus


even barkley acknowledges the conscious self, its just not his thing

eclectic beagle
07-16-14, 07:22 PM
absolutely

everything has its place

like aeon said I've grown tired of "our" (adhd) psychic lives being reduced to chemical reactions, and terms like hyper focus


even barkley acknowledges the conscious self, its just not his thing

On "hyper focus" yes, part of the issue is poor descriptors, or the over-use of them (which might lead to the underplaying of other aspects of the disorder (or whatever phenomenon is under discussion)).

Stevuke79
07-16-14, 08:10 PM
What is "Science-as-you-know-it"?

Once I understand that I might understand the rest of the article. :scratch:

I believe that's science founded in "Ontological Materialism". Personally, I was going to ask, "But how does he know there there is an undue dominance of Ontological Materialism in Science-as-we-know-it?" I was going to ask but then he wrote: "If you ask me to substantiate this assertion with data, you will be simply revealing your naiveté about what's going on: it's like asking for proof that the Earth is round." So then I thought I better not ask :(.

Notice I write: "Undue dominance of Ontological Materialism." The basic dominance of Ontological Materialism (that's getting tiring, can I write OM from now on?) is a given if we are going to bother performing tests or studies that at least partially involve our 5 senses. At least to the extent that we are trying to produce actionable and testable conclusions, OM, by no fault of it's own, must lead the way. But if one were less self conscious and vain,.. ummm, I mean less sophisticated,.. than myself, they might ask if the extent of dominance is undue. Thankfully I don't have to ask because I know the answer, after all it's so obvious. Imagine the low opinion we'll all have of the poor fool who dares to ask such an ignorant question!

Amtram
07-16-14, 09:08 PM
The author is a computer engineer who dabbles in quantum physics (mostly in cherry picking what seems to fit his bias, whether it does or not), and shows very little evidence that he's familiar with science as it's actually done. Nothing that he writes about in biology or evolution or neuroscience is backed up with anything but his own speculation (in fact, he admits to speculation in several places) and is therefore less than reliable as evidence of anything.

daveddd
07-16-14, 09:18 PM
The author is a computer engineer who dabbles in quantum physics (mostly in cherry picking what seems to fit his bias, whether it does or not), and shows very little evidence that he's familiar with science as it's actually done. Nothing that he writes about in biology or evolution or neuroscience is backed up with anything but his own speculation (in fact, he admits to speculation in several places) and is therefore less than reliable as evidence of anything.

what qualifications do you have to judge how familiar someone is with something

what is your actual profession?

Amtram
07-16-14, 09:33 PM
If you read his blog, he makes his qualifications quite clear himself. No need to presume anything.

I am a science hobbyist, but I take science very seriously. I have a network of professional scientists who regularly inform me of new developments and help me to understand research - and correct me when I'm wrong. When it comes to understanding science, I rely on the advice of experts in the field, which is far more than Kastrup does.

It takes very little time to see that he is committed to metaphysics, and rejects understanding of anything that may contradict his largely spiritual ideas. The only things I saw in my last perusal of his blog (which lasted several hours) that involved information from biologists on biology, evolutionary biologists on evolution, or neurologists on neuroscience, was to belittle their expertise in their relevant fields as inferior to his computer-model-based idea of how these things should work.

It is clear that he deliberately avoids exposing himself to new information except to mock it without understanding. Life sciences are not subject to spiritual forces or quantum mechanics, nor do they follow a linear, computer-based model, which is what he firmly believes.

If you'd like to see what I know about science, my blog is linked in my signature.

daveddd
07-16-14, 09:36 PM
If you read his blog, he makes his qualifications quite clear himself. No need to presume anything.

I am a science hobbyist, but I take science very seriously. I have a network of professional scientists who regularly inform me of new developments and help me to understand research - and correct me when I'm wrong. When it comes to understanding science, I rely on the advice of experts in the field, which is far more than Kastrup does.

It takes very little time to see that he is committed to metaphysics, and rejects understanding of anything that may contradict his largely spiritual ideas. The only things I saw in my last perusal of his blog (which lasted several hours) that involved information from biologists on biology, evolutionary biologists on evolution, or neurologists on neuroscience, was to belittle their expertise in their relevant fields as inferior to his computer-model-based idea of how these things should work.

It is clear that he deliberately avoids exposing himself to new information except to mock it without understanding. Life sciences are not subject to spiritual forces or quantum mechanics, nor do they follow a linear, computer-based model, which is what he firmly believes.

If you'd like to see what I know about science, my blog is linked in my signature.

I'm sure you have your own very strong opinion on science

i was just curious what made you qualified to definitively decide who is qualified and who isn't all the time

ironically most often in the threads of a medical doctor

Amtram
07-16-14, 09:41 PM
If someone says things that are patently untrue and encourages the use of things that defy all known evidence, it doesn't matter what his/her qualifications are. In the case of Kastrup, his lack of qualifications matters because he positions himself as someone who knows more about science than those lame-a** scientists.

daveddd
07-16-14, 09:50 PM
"Having said this, I am solely responsible for the opinions I am about to express."



all i know is this is straight out of the article


and he might be right

there are parts of psychology that won't show up under a microscope

Amtram
07-16-14, 09:59 PM
Psychology is not the issue. That is a soft science that has somewhat malleable evidence. This is not to discount it - it has shown measurable benefit over the years. Kastrup denigrates the findings of hard sciences and wants to supplant them with speculation, tossing hard evidence and well-supported Theories in the trash simply because he doesn't believe them.

His opinions are formed based upon deliberate, willful ignorance. In other entries, he encourages people to ignore evidence and launches ad hominem attacks against scientists who dare to base what they say on evidence that is relevant to what they're speaking of, since they are obviously small-minded and can't see the things he imagines are true.

Try reading what he has to say about evolution. The misinformation he spews is fairly mind-boggling.

Stevuke79
07-16-14, 10:06 PM
there are parts of psychology that won't show up under a microscope
Everyone agrees to this. This is not a novel idea or scandalous. Neither is his statement:
The implicit materialist belief that is now intrinsically associated with science-as-you-know-it limits the horizons of scientific research. Many interesting and promising phenomena do not get studied because, according to materialism, they are a priori decreed to be impossible.

That one's just stupid. Or is it ontologically closed minded of me to laugh at the idea that I would medicate my child on the basis of a priori science? For those not fluent in Latin and need a translation in order to answer my question: the etymology of a priori, is a meaning "one's colon" and priori being the past perfect tense of "Pulled out of".

daveddd
07-16-14, 10:13 PM
......

i missed the part that said not to medicate your children



i agree with parts of his argument, as the OP said this is not at all against all science ,


there is "science" that is getting in the way of helping people

in the words of the worlds leading researcher in ADHD, russell barkley

"are we doomed to accept the neurological reductionism explanations of EF"

"the strictly neurological view of humanity, frankly is not worth having"

daveddd
07-16-14, 10:26 PM
IMO

the point of the this


science is evidence, not material

Stevuke79
07-16-14, 10:28 PM
i missed the part that said not to medicate your children

Not medicating your children was a hypothetical example of an area where all of the research, funding and attention goes to what he calls ,"OM" science. And then decries this unfairness as: "not only false, but corrosive, demeaning to the human condition, and a threat to a sane and healthy future for your children"

i agree with parts of his argument, as the OP said this is not at all against all science ,

Just the bias towareds OM science,.. i got it.
there is "science" that is getting in the way of helping people

I don't think we should help anyone without empirical evidence that we'd actually be helping them.

in the words of the worlds leading researcher in ADHD, russell barkley

"are we doomed to accept the neurological reductionism explanations of EF"

"the strictly neurological view of humanity, frankly is not worth having"

I don't think he was arguing for untestable scientific conclusions ...

daveddd
07-16-14, 10:33 PM
Not medicating your children was a hypothetical example of an area where all of the research, funding and attention goes to what he calls ,"OM" science. And then decries this unfairness as: "not only false, but corrosive, demeaning to the human condition, and a threat to a sane and healthy future for your children"



Just the bias towareds OM science,.. i got it.


I don't think we should help anyone without empirical evidence that we'd actually be helping them.



I don't think he was arguing for untestable scientific conclusions ...

he absolutely was


he accepts that the mind won't always provide "testable conclusions" in fact that theory has ruined psychology and left many suffering

only now with the undeniable (yet not material) great results of third wave behavioral treatment , many are starting to accept it

daveddd
07-16-14, 10:55 PM
steve

don't know if were on the same page

but consciousness directly challenges scientific materialism, conscious sense of self

that doesn't exist in scientific materialism

are you arguing the same thing?

Stevuke79
07-16-14, 10:59 PM
Right, but your results are still testable even if not neurologically specific. If I understand (which is always suspect) he was saying that there is a detrimental focus on the biological aspects of psychology.

If he is saying we should be willing to make scientific deductions and establish scientific without "seeing things with a microscope", we already do that all the time. The Higgs Boson particle was undisputed scientific fact long before we had the Large Hadron Collider with which to empirically identify it. So I don't think that could be what the blogger is saying. (Assuming a modicum of intelligence.)

meadd823
07-17-14, 02:42 AM
A bias view speaking against another bias view creates even more bias views which are personal biases irregardless of which bias the reader / poster prefers - Can't help but admire the irony:lol:

SB_UK
07-17-14, 03:45 AM
The Higgs Boson people used their imagination to nail the existence of the Higgs Boson 50 years before it's existence was shown.

Funny that people seem unwilling to use their imagination to work out what the mind is ... ... because as far as I can see there's only really 1 option.

A species level property representing all of human radio wave constructive interference within the cavity between planet and ionosphere (where radio station radio waves bounce) of human EEGs (frequencies like radio stations send).

The species level structure is like an OO class and human beings are like objects ie inherit properties so class might stipulate underpants must have colour - but the colour which we choose our underpants to have is in our own hands.

But if that's too woo!
Simply to re-phrase all of that as human beings needing to have a global discussion to get on the same page (ie understand religion, God, what's worth doing, what's right/wrong etc etc etc)

- that this represents a scientific (simplest explanatory model of reality)

ie true mind = 'science'

- thereafter we'll behave in logical consistency / moral consistency with one another operating under optimal scientific logical / moral consistency.

IE science / mind cannot be separated - synonyms -
optimal mind = scientific model.

SB_UK
07-17-14, 04:19 AM
So - I'm suggesting that empirical science (as it develops) can hand off the baton to reason ie 'foundations' (empirical science)
- building (reasoning).

Don't reason without observations which're robust but but but realise that empirical science can only take us so far

- in theory there are an infinite number of experiments we can attempt - the expts if any are required - need to be heavily regulated by a mind which seeks to make sense (convergence) rather than over-complicate (divergence) understanding.

empirical science -> <- reasoning
neurology -> <- psychology
empirical science -> <- philosophy


empirical science -> <- philosophy
...............................^
...............................|
.......................fundamental substance

IE 'god' describes evolutionary progression of itself explaining away evolution at the level of physics and thereafter evolution (at emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens) of mind.

-- ie fundamental substance (metalevel) is simply a logical regular (see boson/fermion/boson) evolutionary property which delivers progressive informational complexity giving us informational entropy as opposed to material world entropy as the thrust of 'fundamental substance'

-- yes towards increasing entropy - but by material world definition that sounds like equalizing energy within a box representing the Universe
- but that's not it - it's more like creating a more efficiently packed suitcase by developing a better (more informationally complex) array of metalevel.

Not energy - we need to consider the Universal informational landscape - which took a mighty leap up with the (presumably low energy) human mind.

SB_UK
07-17-14, 04:36 AM
oops !!

Just realised


empirical science -> <- reasoning
Science as Defacement of Reason is exactly it - the sweet point is compatibility between the two -

but the materialists (scientific extremists) and the 'reason' in the absence of evidence (religious extremists) aren't trying to find balance
eg Richard Dawkins' wrecking crew and the God squad

but're trying to thwart one another.

Basically - they're both wrong until the two models are logically consistent ie empirical scientists and those who apply reason without experimentation are BOTH wrong - until they're BOTH right (logically consistent).

SB_UK
07-17-14, 04:40 AM
Too many words.

Can you summarise all that people need to understand ?

Yes !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIdFzP0TJxc

That's all.

Or in neuro psycho scientifico philosophotyzing babble

- development of the social reward system (personal reward as determinant of behaviour) and elimination of the selfish reward system (acquisition of money/power [love of money/power root of all evil]) through completion of mind (wisdom acquisition) through striving towards/achieving a rational understanding/application of what is right and what is wrong (== morality).


That's all.

I wonder whether there's a shorter version of that video someplace.
B. Crocker's hit

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 05:19 AM
I believe that's science founded in "Ontological Materialism". Personally, I was going to ask, "But how does he know there there is an undue dominance of Ontological Materialism in Science-as-we-know-it?" I was going to ask but then he wrote: "If you ask me to substantiate this assertion with data, you will be simply revealing your naiveté about what's going on: it's like asking for proof that the Earth is round." So then I thought I better not ask :(.

Notice I write: "Undue dominance of Ontological Materialism." The basic dominance of Ontological Materialism (that's getting tiring, can I write OM from now on?) is a given if we are going to bother performing tests or studies that at least partially involve our 5 senses. At least to the extent that we are trying to produce actionable and testable conclusions, OM, by no fault of it's own, must lead the way. But if one were less self conscious and vain,.. ummm, I mean less sophisticated,.. than myself, they might ask if the extent of dominance is undue. Thankfully I don't have to ask because I know the answer, after all it's so obvious. Imagine the low opinion we'll all have of the poor fool who dares to ask such an ignorant question!

Thanks Steve. To be honest, I had exactly the same question and that line "If you ask me to substantiate this assertion with data, you will be simply revealing your naiveté about what's going on: it's like asking for proof that the Earth is round." annoyed the hell out of me. What a convenient way to shut down any questions or any discussion really. Also, it doesn't make any sense. I think, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for proof that the earth is round and thankfully, in this case, there is plenty of proof that the earth really is round. It's always reasonable to ask for proof. That's what science is based on. Without the need for demonstrable proof it becomes religion. (If anything can ever be fundamentally and absolutely proved is another question but science doesn't make that claim).

Now, let me read the article again. Maybe it will make more sense to me.. :)

daveddd
07-17-14, 06:06 AM
A bias view speaking against another bias view creates even more bias views which are personal biases irregardless of which bias the reader / poster prefers - Can't help but admire the irony:lol:

thanks for raising my serotonin levels :lol:

you've "proved" why I've been depressed lately

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 07:14 AM
Thanks Steve. To be honest, I had exactly the same question and that line "If you ask me to substantiate this assertion with data, you will be simply revealing your naiveté about what's going on: it's like asking for proof that the Earth is round." annoyed the hell out of me. What a convenient way to shut down any questions or any discussion really. Also, it doesn't make any sense. I think, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for proof that the earth is round and thankfully, in this case, there is plenty of proof that the earth really is round. It's always reasonable to ask for proof.

Agreed. Once I got to that line it was pretty clear to me we weren't dealing with a serious scientist but rather someone who simply wishes to pontificate unquestioned.
That's what science is based on.

How offensively ontologically-closed-minded of you!! What you mean to say is, "That's what OM science is based on". ;) ;)

Without the need for demonstrable proof it becomes religion.
I hadn't thought of that but note how the advocates sound more like demagogues than a person interested in honest discussion. Such is the way.
Now, let me read the article again. Maybe it will make more sense to me.. :)
If I were you, I'd manage my expectations ;)

daveddd
07-17-14, 07:59 AM
Agreed. Once I got to that line it was pretty clear to me we weren't dealing with a serious scientist but rather someone who simply wishes to pontificate unquestioned.


How offensively ontologically-closed-minded of you!! What you mean to say is, "That's what OM science is based on". ;) ;)


I hadn't thought of that but note how the advocates sound more like demagogues than a person interested in honest discussion. Such is the way.

If I were you, I'd manage my expectations ;)

materialism is biological reductionism, and harmful in psychology (i don't care about other sciences , this is a psych forum)

if thats your belief , thats fine

it just doesn't seem to match your arguments

daveddd
07-17-14, 08:06 AM
i see the damage here daily

its tricked people into believing all their actions are based off of what chemical their brain is seeking

barkley expresses his disgust of it several times throughout this book

http://books.google.com/books?id=7c39F6qD38IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=executive+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-7vHU6GjO9W1yASr34HIBg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=executive%20functions&f=false


i believe he is credible and more than a pontificator

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 08:08 AM
i see the damage here daily

its tricked people into believing all their actions are based off of what chemical their brain is seeking

barkley expresses his disgust of it several times throughout this book

http://books.google.com/books?id=7c39F6qD38IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=executive+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-7vHU6GjO9W1yASr34HIBg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=executive%20functions&f=false


i believe he is credible and more than a pontificator

Sometimes I'm tempted to believe that it all boils down to just chemicals (or any form of biology, like anatomy, physiology, etc.) but I really can't be sure.

However, psychology too can be scientific. I don't see the conflict really. I see science as a method rather than a collection of facts or a body of knowledge.

daveddd
07-17-14, 08:11 AM
Sometimes I'm tempted to believe that it all boils down to just chemicals (or any form of biology, like anatomy, physiology, etc.) but I really can't be sure.

However, psychology too can be scientific. I don't see the conflict really. I see science as a method rather than a collection of facts or a body of knowledge.


i believe everyone, including the OP acknowledged that most science is good

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 08:28 AM
i believe everyone, including the OP acknowledged that most science is good

That's exactly my question and what I don't really understand in the article. Which part of science is not good? Is it the possibility that scientists draw metaphysical conclusions from scientific facts?

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 08:39 AM
materialism is biological reductionism, and harmful in psychology (i don't care about other sciences , this is a psych forum)

if thats your belief , thats fine

it just doesn't seem to match your arguments

Davidd, I think that you're missing the point of this article. I don't mean this next bit to blow smoke up your a priori, but just so you don't take this as disrespect please know that I know that you are incredibly and impressively well informed and intelligent. Sometimes smart people give others too much credit. I do it, and I think you are doing it with this article. Also, like you I am a devout contrarian. And I know that at least for me personally, any article that starts off with "OK,.. this is going to be controversial.." is immediately appealing to me. I WANT to agree with them, and with this article I was disappointed when it showed itself to be ultimately unimpressive. Davidd - I know you're struggle - it's mine too!!! Fight your contrarian impulse - Not ALL contrarian views are correct. ;)

If I understand what he's saying, he has 2 points:

1. OM is an opinion: That's a fact and disputed by no one. It is not controversial or scandalous.

2. The Dominance of OM is a Corruption of Science and a defacement of reason:
No, it's just practical. Most scientific funding comes from people looking to make money. You're more likely to make more money, more quickly if you take the approach of OM.

Also, results founded in OM are usually more testable and repeatable. If the goal is the rigorous advancement of science with rigorously peer reviewed building blocks, it makes sense that scientists looking to further themselves will stick with empirical assertions.

It may not be fair. It may not be right. But it is also not a scandal or corruption. It may be more of a way towards dollars and cents than a way towards the broadest possible set of scientific conclusions, but that's still not corruption. We can debate the ethics of OM dominance, but it's not some well guarded or controversial secret.


For the entire article he connects #1 and #2, .. then he spends his time proving and reproving #1 and then claims to have just proven #2. But he doesn't prove #2 anywhere - he only proves #1, which was never in dispute, but which he has artificially linked to #2.

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 08:41 AM
(In finance you learn to be a BS-detecting ninja!)

daveddd
07-17-14, 09:11 AM
Understood

I have to spend 3-4 hours a night researching to keep up with the mental health field

I guess what I see makes me agree somewhat with the topic

To me. Science as a money maker is corrupt and pointless

daveddd
07-17-14, 09:14 AM
(In finance you learn to be a BS-detecting ninja!)

That's the truth

I was a finance manager for 4 years in my mid twenties

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 09:46 AM
Also, like you I am a devout contrarian. And I know that at least for me personally, any article that starts off with "OK,.. this is going to be controversial.." is immediately appealing to me. I WANT to agree with them, and with this article I was disappointed when it showed itself to be ultimately unimpressive. Davidd - I know you're struggle - it's mine too!!! Fight your contrarian impulse - Not ALL contrarian views are correct. ;)

That's actually another thing I found annoying about the article. He's wasted two paragraphs talking about how controversial his view is and how he expects people to disagree. I guess he's free to do that in a blog article but to me it sounded very defensive and quite pretentious: "Yet, doing what I am about to do is, I guess, the price of brutal honesty. "

If I understand what he's saying, he has 2 points:

1. OM is an opinion: That's a fact and disputed by no one. It is not controversial or scandalous.

2. The Dominance of OM is a Corruption of Science and a defacement of reason:
No, it's just practical. Most scientific funding comes from people looking to make money. You're more likely to make more money, more quickly if you take the approach of OM.

Also, results founded in OM are usually more testable and repeatable. If the goal is the rigorous advancement of science with rigorously peer reviewed building blocks, it makes sense that scientists looking to further themselves will stick with empirical assertions.

Thanks for summing up so concisely and clearly what I've been breaking my head trying to express. "No, it's just practical". I would argue that results founded in OM are not just more testable and repeatable but they are the only things that are testable and repeatable. I'm still not sure what the alternative is that he proposes. All that we can perceive or sense is matter. If there is anything else out there I don't know but if there is then at the moment we don't have the tools to detect them let alone understand or analyse them.

For the entire article he connects #1 and #2, .. then he spends his time proving and reproving #1 and then claims to have just proven #2. But he doesn't prove #2 anywhere - he only proves #1, which was never in dispute, but which he has artificially linked to #2.

Yes, very true. It's a big jump to make from stating that OM is an opinion to stating that OM is a defacement of reason, and nowhere does he explain the jump.

Anyway, what is the alternative??

daveddd
07-17-14, 09:53 AM
That's actually another thing I found annoying about the article. He's wasted two paragraphs talking about how controversial his view is and how he expects people to disagree. I guess he's free to do that in a blog article but to me it sounded very defensive and quite pretentious: "Yet, doing what I am about to do is, I guess, the price of brutal honesty. "



Thanks for summing up so concisely and clearly what I've been breaking my head trying to express. "No, it's just practical". I would argue that results founded in OM are not just more testable and repeatable but they are the only things that are testable and repeatable. I'm still not sure what the alternative is that he proposes. All that we can perceive or sense is matter. If there is anything else out there I don't know but if there is then at the moment we don't have the tools to detect them let alone understand or analyse them.



Yes, very true. It's a big jump to make from stating that OM is an opinion to stating that OM is a defacement of reason, and nowhere does he explain the jump.

Anyway, what is the alternative??


I'm sorry. But your just not able to accept that mind exists other than matter

Conscious is just as "proven" as the biology of mental illness

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 09:59 AM
I had to look up OM, so this is the definition (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Materialism) that I'm working with: "Ontological materialism is the belief, or assumption, that only material matter and energy exist. For the ontological materialist anything immaterial must be the product of the material. In principle all immaterial phenomena must be reducible to (explicable by) natural laws."

I've also read the other article (http://www.elsevier.com/authorFAQ) he mentions that was published in the New Dawn, which makes a lot more sense (well, in parts) and is much better written (in my opinion). I think, I'm starting to understand his point better.

The rationalwiki site above makes a distinction between OM and methodological materialism (which "is neither a belief nor an assumption but a restriction on method. Briefly stated it holds that a non-material assumption is not to be made. Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist.") I guess, that is how I view science, as methodological materialism, a method "based on empirically-observed patterns and regularities of reality" (as he states in the other article (http://www.elsevier.com/authorFAQ) he mentions that was published in the New Dawn, which makes a lot more sense (well, in parts) and is much better written (in my opinion).

So is his contention that some scientists believe in the absolute, fundamental reality of only that which is empirically-observable, repeatable and testable, i.e. matter and deny the possibility of the existence of anything else?

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 10:05 AM
I'm sorry. But your just not able to accept that mind exists other than matter

Conscious is just as "proven" as the biology of mental illness

I think, "mind" is an abstract, artificial noun that describes one of the products of our brain, i.e. our thoughts or consciousness. I do believe in consciousness but I see it as material, as something that arises from our brain, can be perceived only by our brain and exists only as long as the brain exists..:scratch:

(Well, to be precise it's not just a product of the brain but of our entire body as the brain doesn't exist in isolation from the rest of the body and our sense of consciousness is influenced by the rest of the body as well).

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 10:20 AM
Understood

I have to spend 3-4 hours a night researching to keep up with the mental health field

It shows

I guess what I see makes me agree somewhat with the topic

I think the blogger specifically wants to identify with something very real that I DO believe you are truly noticing.

In science, our empirical observations are limited which is frustrating because we KNOW that every few years our observations become more inclusive. Which of course brings us beyond sciences more classical existential questions and compels us to ask, "Well what about our ontological assumptions? Shall we limit our theories to only things materially observable today?" If so there are surely possibilities that we will be excluding today that we will include tomorrow. But the POINT is PHILOSOPHICALLY speaking they are not less philosophically valid today. Just less material.

To me. Science as a money maker is corrupt and pointless

That's like saying: cycling as a form of exercise is corrupt and pointless. Cycling is strictly for sight seeing ..or touring, or transportation,.. or whatever YOU would like to do on your bicycle.

Who is to blame for this corruption?
Financiers? Who are only willing to fund the sciences if it serves their interests.
Scientists? All those greedy scientists who are unwilling to work for free. They're the ones giving the financiers power you know.
Parents? Blame us ontologically closed minded parents who wont purchase treatments for our children that cannot be studied or tested.
The FDA? The corrupt institution that requires OM studies to even make such treatments legal.

I tell you - if this is corruption, it goes straight to the top!!!! But really - I can respect the "corrupt" decisions that each of these parties are making.
That's the truth
I was a finance manager for 4 years in my mid twenties

Really, but you seem like such a nice guy? Why would you consider finance?

daveddd
07-17-14, 10:20 AM
Yea. I'm not into afterlife or anything

You'd have to see the subconscious at work to understand what I mean

In materlism that doesn't exist

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 10:23 AM
Yea. I'm not into afterlife or anything

You'd have to see the subconscious at work to understand what I mean

In materlism that doesn't exist

I suspect that we understand materialism differently. I don't think that the subconscious is any less material than the conscious.

Kunga Dorji
07-17-14, 10:24 AM
That's exactly my question and what I don't really understand in the article. Which part of science is not good? Is it the possibility that scientists draw metaphysical conclusions from scientific facts?


That is exactly the point.Sceintific materialism intrudes into metaphysics without even grasping that it has long left behind the realms of the provable.
However it continues to assert the right of the senoir authority even when it has run off the edge of the cliff.
In this sense the scientific materialists are awfully like the Warner Brothers Coyote, who will keep on running in thin air after the Roadrunner until he looks down :)

Kunga Dorji
07-17-14, 10:25 AM
I am a proud scientific materialist :)

It shows :D

daveddd
07-17-14, 10:27 AM
I suspect that we understand materialism differently. I don't think that the subconscious is any less material than the conscious.

It assumes that mental illness cannot be caused by subconscious workings

Only flawed biology

That has been proven wrong

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 10:34 AM
It assumes that mental illness cannot be caused by subconscious workings

Only flawed biology

That has been proven wrong

Who says that? Most of the papers I've read on the causes of mental health disorders, state that in most cases there is a prominent genetic factor but environmental factors play a big role too though I guess, how large the genetic factor is depends on each disorder.

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 10:39 AM
That is exactly the point.Sceintific materialism intrudes into metaphysics without even grasping that it has long left behind the realms of the provable.
However it continues to assert the right of the senoir authority even when it has run off the edge of the cliff.
In this sense the scientific materialists are awfully like the Warner Brothers Coyote, who will keep on running in thin air after the Roadrunner until he looks down :)

I don't disagree with that but I don't think that's a problem with science in general. Maybe it is but I haven't seen it. I guess, the problem arises when scientists believe that the current state of knowledge is the final, irrefutable state of knowledge but that I'd argue is extremely unscientific.

Kunga Dorji
07-17-14, 10:41 AM
Life sciences are not subject to spiritual forces or quantum mechanics, nor do they follow a linear, computer-based model, which is what he firmly believes.



Amtram-- I am not going to argue the quantum mechanics thing- that is too hard to do, and I am still digesting the very serious material from Stuart Hameroff ( an anaesthesiologist who is expert in the application of Quantum theory to consciousness-- his pedigree is:
professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Psychology and associate director for the Center for Consciousness Studies, both in 1999, and finally Emeritus professor for Anesthesiology and Psychology in 2003.

However on the matter of whether life sciences are subject to "Spiritual forces" you are dead wrong.
There is very clear evidence to show that one's "View" of a given event profoundly alters the biological outcome of that event.

ie something dificult happens to you
Option a) You choose to believe that this is evidence that the universe sucks and everything always goes wrong.
You are plunged into an emotional state of gloom and up goes your cortisol. Suddenly a whole suite of genes that would be best left dormant are turned on-- and before long you are headed toards metabolic syndrome.

Option B) You choose to act "as if" a certain spiritual view were correct.
That spiritual view might me (for instance ) that you chose to be incarnated to learn form the experience- and that the failure you hav ejst experienced is a valuable life lesson.
As a result of the "spiritual view" you have chosen to adopt on an "as if " basis- you no longer see the world as a threatening, punishing place.
You see it as a giving place-- in this case giving you the life lesson taht ou needed to experience.
The same unpleasant outcome has still happened butas a result of the spiritual view that you have adopted you are flooded with gratitude at the universe which kindly warns you what you are doing wrong.

Do you seriously thank that adopting that "spiritual view" does not have a measurable positive effect on your physiology?

If you do think that-- you just have not done enough homework.

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 10:47 AM
That's actually another thing I found annoying about the article. He's wasted two paragraphs talking about how controversial his view is and how he expects people to disagree. I guess he's free to do that in a blog article but to me it sounded very defensive and quite pretentious: "Yet, doing what I am about to do is, I guess, the price of brutal honesty. "

As a contrarian, he almost got me. It was a close one.. I may have needed to be de-brainwashed.

Thanks for summing up so concisely and clearly what I've been breaking my head trying to express. "No, it's just practical". I would argue that results founded in OM are not just more testable and repeatable but they are the only things that are testable and repeatable. I'm still not sure what the alternative is that he proposes. All that we can perceive or sense is matter. If there is anything else out there I don't know but if there is then at the moment we don't have the tools to detect them let alone understand or analyse them.

Yes, very true. It's a big jump to make from stating that OM is an opinion to stating that OM is a defacement of reason, and nowhere does he explain the jump.

Anyway, what is the alternative??

It's very difficult to define the alternative specifically, because it's a lot of things. Anything that is proven by lack of contradiction without the condition that it actually be disprovable. Proverbially, Martian Tea-Pots are the most basic alternative. More specifically, Scientology is more specific RL example.

And btw, Davidd, I feel I'm neglecting to note where we DO agree with you.

Those skeptical of OM have a bit of a point - but their practical assertions are ridiculous. In "Science as we know it" something can be theorized so long as it CAN be disproved. Something is proven by virtue of the fact that it CAN BE DISPROVED and the fact that it HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVED. Skeptics of OM want to do away with the first condition - AND THEY HAVE A POINT - existentially speaking, from a rigorously logical perspective the first condition is NOT a condition for truth. I understand why it's frustrating to them.

But the first condition is THE ONLY DIFFERENCE between a normal human being and a Scientologist. Or someone who worships martian tea-pots. To be able to have such a distinction between myself and those praying to a tea-pot, I am willing to accept the fact that my ontological assumptions aren't 100% rigorous or all inclusive. I'm cool with that. Conceded. You win. I am open and exposed to ontological critique and ridicule - have fun praying to your tea-pot you ontologically perfect SOB!! ;) ;)
(just kidding, you know I love and respect you!)

daveddd
07-17-14, 10:56 AM
Who says that? Most of the papers I've read on the causes of mental health disorders, state that in most cases there is a prominent genetic factor but environmental factors play a big role too though I guess, how large the genetic factor is depends on each disorder.

:scratch::scratch:materialism

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 10:58 AM
It's very difficult to define the alternative specifically, because it's a lot of things. Anything that is proven by lack of contradiction without the condition that it actually be disprovable. Proverbially, Martian Tea-Pots are the most basic alternative. More specifically, Scientology is more specific RL example.



Martian Tea Pots are not an alternative to science. Science is a method whereas martian tea - pots are a fact ;)

The reasoning that proves that martian tea pots exist could be an alternative if it is non-scientific reasoning.

Seriously, though, science does not say that martian tea pots don't exist and in theory, there is no reason why in the future science won't prove their existence but as of now there is also no reason to invest a lot of money to research their possible existence.

Fuzzy12
07-17-14, 11:00 AM
:scratch::scratch:materialism

:scratch:

How do you define materialism?

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 11:03 AM
Martian Tea Pots are not an alternative to science. Science is a method whereas martian tea - pots are a fact ;)

The reasoning that proves that martian tea pots exist could be an alternative if it is non-scientific reasoning.

Seriously, though, science does not say that martian tea pots don't exist and in theory, there is no reason why in the future science won't prove their existence but as of now there is also no reason to invest a lot of money to research their possible existence.

Exactly,.. and I think that by correctly pointing out my poor terminology you're actually underlying the debate.

I have no idea if Martians drink tea, but unless the possibility is proposed ALONG WITH a way to disprove it, if I'm a scientist, I am perfectly justified in dismissing the suggestion. I am neither corrupt nor illogical for doing so.

daveddd
07-17-14, 11:09 AM
:scratch:

How do you define materialism?

as what it is

complete biological reductionism

an insult to the human race

daveddd
07-17-14, 11:16 AM
Exactly,.. and I think that by correctly pointing out my poor terminology you're actually underlying the debate.

I have no idea if Martians drink tea, but unless the possibility is proposed ALONG WITH a way to disprove it, if I'm a scientist, I am perfectly justified in dismissing the suggestion. I am neither corrupt nor illogical for doing so.

luckily everyone doesn't listen to scientists who dismiss everything that isn't "proven" (sorry about the quotes, but i find it comical some of the things that are claimed to be proven in mental illness)

id probably be dead if i did

daveddd
07-17-14, 11:18 AM
Meditation, mindfulness and executive control: the importance of emotional acceptance and brain-based performance monitoring
Rimma Teper and Michael Inzlicht
+ Author Affiliations

Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M1C 1A4
Correspondence should be addressed to Rimma Teper, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, ON, Canada M1C 1A4. E-mail: rimma.teper@gmail.com
Received October 20, 2011.
Accepted April 5, 2012.

Next Section
Abstract

Previous studies have documented the positive effects of mindfulness meditation on executive control. What has been lacking, however, is an understanding of the mechanism underlying this effect. Some theorists have described mindfulness as embodying two facets—present moment awareness and emotional acceptance. Here, we examine how the effect of meditation practice on executive control manifests in the brain, suggesting that emotional acceptance and performance monitoring play important roles. We investigated the effect of meditation practice on executive control and measured the neural correlates of performance monitoring, specifically, the error-related negativity (ERN), a neurophysiological response that occurs within 100 ms of error commission. Meditators and controls completed a Stroop task, during which we recorded ERN amplitudes with electroencephalography. Meditators showed greater executive control (i.e. fewer errors), a higher ERN and more emotional acceptance than controls. Finally, mediation pathway models further revealed that meditation practice relates to greater executive control and that this effect can be accounted for by heightened emotional acceptance, and to a lesser extent, increased brain-based performance monitoring.

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/1/85.full

id consider this non materialistic science

because emotional repression/dissociation is an aspect of non physical consciousness

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 11:25 AM
Ok,.. I have to go get some work done, but we can at least say that focusing only on "disprovable" theories, at least saves time? And if we're including the non-disprovable there are an infinite number of things we can include. Which means the limitations on what we DO KNOW is overextending itself into our selection bias. For instance how do I know it's a martian tea-pot and not a martian french-press?

I don't think the mindfullness study you cited is "non materialist". It's non biological, but not non materialist. If it were to ASSERT possible pathways that can be inferred from the results, THEN it would be a lot closer to the blogger. I like this study - and this study is fairly mainstream.

daveddd
07-17-14, 11:27 AM
screw work

let the nt materialists worry about work

I'm "working to"

dam my quest for dopamine

daveddd
07-17-14, 11:28 AM
Ok,.. I have to go get some work done, but we can at least say that focusing only on "disprovable" theories, at least saves time? And if we're including the non-disprovable there are an infinite number of things we can include. Which means the limitations on what we DO KNOW is overextending itself into our selection bias. For instance how do I know it's a martian tea-pot and not a martian french-press?

I don't think the mindfullness study you cited is "non materialist". It's non biological, but not non materialist. If it were to ASSERT possible pathways that can be inferred from the results, THEN it would be a lot closer to the blogger. I like this study - and this study is fairly mainstream.

ok were close

i believe a hardcore materialist would reject the idea of repression though

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 11:40 AM
Ok, probably. Hardcore realists aren't the mainstream. They're closer than scientologists, but still not mainstream. They are also less quick to be rejected by the mainstream.

But that's not corruption - it's simply a greater degree of compatibility. Hardcore realists run the risk of unnecessarily excluding things. But the opposite end of the spectrum would needlessly encumber the system with what they wish to include.

I get it though,.. it's not philosophically rigorous. It's practical. I'm a practical guy. (Maybe its what I do for a living. Clients never ask me "How much money should I need to retire. They ask: "How much money do I need to retire?"

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 12:23 PM
I had to look up OM, so this is the definition (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Materialism) that I'm working with: "Ontological materialism is the belief, or assumption, that only material matter and energy exist. For the ontological materialist anything immaterial must be the product of the material. In principle all immaterial phenomena must be reducible to (explicable by) natural laws."

I've also read the other article (http://www.elsevier.com/authorFAQ) he mentions that was published in the New Dawn, which makes a lot more sense (well, in parts) and is much better written (in my opinion). I think, I'm starting to understand his point better.

The rationalwiki site above makes a distinction between OM and methodological materialism (which "is neither a belief nor an assumption but a restriction on method. Briefly stated it holds that a non-material assumption is not to be made. Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist.") I guess, that is how I view science, as methodological materialism, a method "based on empirically-observed patterns and regularities of reality" (as he states in the other article (http://www.elsevier.com/authorFAQ) he mentions that was published in the New Dawn, which makes a lot more sense (well, in parts) and is much better written (in my opinion).

So is his contention that some scientists believe in the absolute, fundamental reality of only that which is empirically-observable, repeatable and testable, i.e. matter and deny the possibility of the existence of anything else?

I missed this post before! Awesome that you tracked down this distinction - it's elusive and it explains a lot! As a philosophy, OM is very worthy of criticism,.. but when you consider that it can be a philosophy OR a method, the latter is much easier to understand. Frankly, it would have made all of my posts much shorter had I understood this, lol!

An interesting question might be whether OM is to the scientists a belief or a method. I'm not sure I actually care,.. but if that were the question the article would then be boring; this would be a step up from facile.

Kunga Dorji
07-17-14, 05:38 PM
i believe everyone, including the OP acknowledged that most science is good

Correct.

It sometimes surprises people- but every single thing I do is based on practical application of scientific method.
I am actually coming close to holding no beliefs at all-merely a set of working hypotheses.

Kunga Dorji
07-17-14, 06:00 PM
The author is a computer engineer who dabbles in quantum physics (mostly in cherry picking what seems to fit his bias, whether it does or not), and shows very little evidence that he's familiar with science as it's actually done. Nothing that he writes about in biology or evolution or neuroscience is backed up with anything but his own speculation (in fact, he admits to speculation in several places) and is therefore less than reliable as evidence of anything.

Amtram - you do need to be careful here on several points.

Firstly if you use Bernardo Kaustrup's professional qualification to define what he is qualified to comment on, you would be forced by extension, to have denounced Einstein's Theory of Relativity- because ,after all when he produced that theory he was just a Postal Clerk with a bad record at school.

However, Kaustrup could not function at his job if he was not adept at day to day application of scientific method.

There is a distinct danger in the line you seem to be pursuing: that of assuming that science is only done by "scientists" who are members of a self defining self regulating professional guild. The extension of that argument is that any commentary by a person on any area outside their area of officially recognised expertise is invalid.

Furthermore, this usually works out that an individual can only remain a member of a professional guild while they adhere to "the party line" and agree with the senior power hierarchy within that guild. The proper name for that philosophy is corporatism. The most famous political practitioner of corporatism was Benito Mussolini. Corporatism is inherently prone to rigidity.

Now- in terms of "evidence he presents" you also have to remember that this is a review article. In terms of his published work- this is just the tip of the iceberg, and for him to have referenced everything in a review article, which is meant to stir debate, would have obscured the key points of his argument. I have read a good deal of him and of related authors as well- and he has considerable evidence for what he says.

The real issue is that the scientific materialists have undue influence on public policy, and that influence is delaying uptake of now well studied therapies based on mindfulness and mind body interventions.

This is important, as these therapies are cheap to administer, have far lower side effect rates than most medications, are personally empowering to the recipient (rather than fostering dependence on experts and our prescription pads), and deliver skills which the recipient of the therapy naturally transfers to his nearest and dearest.

Stevuke79
07-17-14, 06:45 PM
Firstly if you use Bernardo Kaustrup's professional qualification to define what he is qualified to comment on, you would be forced by extension, to have denounced Einstein's Theory of Relativity- because ,after all when he produced that theory he was just a Postal Clerk with a bad record at school.

Actually I think she would simply be forced to have Einstein show proof for his theory which he has.

Once BK's claims are similarly backed by sources and proofs she would no doubt regard them both scientists as equals.

Kunga Dorji
07-17-14, 11:50 PM
Actually I think she would simply be forced to have Einstein show proof for his theory which he has.

Once BK's claims are similarly backed by sources and proofs she would no doubt regard them both scientists as equals.

Proof for Einstein's theory actually came many years after the theory was proposed.

If I recall correctly one of the critical pieces of evidence was the bending of light from the sun by the mass of the planet Mercury.
At the time that the Theory of Relativity was proposed there was not sufficiently subtle instrumentation to measure the effect.

Of course the other critical evidence (nuclear power and weapons) also arrived on the scene years after relativity was advanced.

The real point of BKs post though is that scientific materialism is intruding beyond the scope of what it can prove. Materialism rests on a series of axioms- and its proponents mistakenly believe those axioms as proven or self evident, when they are neither.

This is more a matter of the philosophy of science than the actual science.

Stevuke79
07-18-14, 09:49 AM
Proof for Einstein's theory actually came many years after the theory was proposed.

If I recall correctly one of the critical pieces of evidence was the bending of light from the sun by the mass of the planet Mercury.

Nope, they made him prove it pretty early on. Actually, no one made him do anything - as a responsible scientist he was more eager than anyone else to do so as quickly as possible.

Relativity was theorized by Einstein in 1915. He developed 3 empirical tests in 1916 (had to look them up), one of them was the perehelion precession of mercury. The question of Mercury's peculiar orbit had been observed and carefully documented for over 50 by that time, and Einstein's first test of his theory was using the available historical data. The same goes for bending of the light from the sun - Einstein's theory of relativity explained data that had perplexed scientists for over 100 years.

The gravitation redshift of light wasn't proven until much more recently (1959 - had to look it up), and it was the first test done with instruments so precise that the results couldn't reasonably be disputed (though that didn't stop some people). I suppose that's what you're referring to. That test was a very big deal, but most people would agree (before today I would have written "everyone agrees" but apparently there are always exceptions :rolleyes::faint:) that relativity was proven and tested long before that and only shortly after it was theorized.

At the time that the Theory of Relativity was proposed there was not sufficiently subtle instrumentation to measure the effect.

Not true. We couldn't measure short term effects - but for the celestial predictions Einstein's tests were in regards to existing questions for which he had hundreds of years of data at his disposal - and he was the first in 1919 to ever give a clean and simple explanation for we had all been observing for decades (for mercury) and centuries (for the sun).

daveddd
07-18-14, 11:49 AM
Correct.

It sometimes surprises people- but every single thing I do is based on practical application of scientific method.
I am actually coming close to holding no beliefs at all-merely a set of working hypotheses.

I don't understand why people get so defensive and sarcastic in your threads

Not *** kissing but

I'm very thorough in mental health research from most angles

You clearly have the best grasp on mental health around. By far

Even the stuff about inner ears and phobias. That stuff is highly probably based on tissue connectivity problem genetic disorders and the research behind them

All the stuff u talk about is

Stevuke79
07-18-14, 01:11 PM
I don't understand why people get so defensive and sarcastic in your threads

You clearly have the best grasp on mental health around. By far..

Actually, can I take a stab at that - I may regret this. I mean this with the deepest respect and I relate a lot to you in this regard. I also used to draw a lot of flack the way you do. (IRL, not the forum) this is something I had to learn.

It's the air of absoluteness in your statements and your certainty that you are correct and that someone else is wrong. Particularly when you do that in the context of systemic flaws (science as we know it, for instance) you're implying that the only reason one could disagree with you is either corruption or a mistake.

I think that I am an interesting contrast to you and a few others who share your approach. You are very clearly much smarter and more knowledgeable than me. (on a finance and taxation forum - it would be another story ;) ;)) But I don't draw the same flack and ironically people tend to agree with me even though I'm no expert. I think it's because I make a point to always say "I think" or "it seems to me" which allows people to listen and appreciate what I have to say even if at first (or forever) they disagree. They infer no insult and we can get to a nugget of agreement upon which to build - and both can be enriched. Because I have not declared myself to be correct or my position to be absolute, they usually don't do it either. In that context no one must cast aside or compromise their ego to allow themselves to learn something. It makes it easy for me to concede to them, and easy for them to then concede a point to me if they ever wish to.

Also, a context of absoluteness makes it just feel more "natural" to consider where you are wrong rather than consider where you are right. It's literally the most intuitive response to an assumption of "correctness".

daveddd
07-18-14, 02:10 PM
See I could almost see that. And honestly most people in the science section seem to come off like that

Looking at this thread in isolation I'm not sure that adds up

I think some of the detractors come off even worse

Stevuke79
07-18-14, 02:54 PM
I wont belabor the point other than to say, detractors coming off worse doesn't contradict my point. When anyone makes ANY statement, the most natural response is to test it.
1. When you state your point as an absolute (or that someone else is wrong,.. or that this point is contrary to the 'system' which is to say the system is wrong) the most natural thing to do is to test it which is to ask: Where might you be wrong?

2. If you just state your point the most natural thing to consider is if you agree. the debate goes in a whole different direction.

Any statement that takes the form "right and wrong" #1 has an element of rhetoric. And as far as our reflexes - rhetoric is more important than discussion. You say that the detractors are just as bad - of course they are. Rhetoric attracts rhetoric. Right and Wrong is about our integrity - not our ideas. Shall I respond with my thoughts on the matter? With hypotheticals? Just a little a priori where I disagree with you that I actually do have integrity? You may think you've come for a discussion but you are mistaken. When you state an absolute - YOU'VE COME FOR WAR.

I'm a peace maker in my soul, I'm not a scientist. But make no mistake how I subdue my heart and my mind in order to be the first to offer common ground in these discussions. I think I do this the best I can and better than most. And some people (not you daviddd) make this VERY hard. I'm sure I sometimes fail. Think how much I've granted him in this debate even from the beginning. The subjectivity of OM; it's negative impact on science, that the detractors of OM have a point ontologically. I'm really trying to get to the only place where his agreement would require very minimal concession - the problem is not systemic corruption but systemic practicality. I've ceded the possibility of everything else from the beginning and am only debating my most reasonable point. Does KD ever ceded anything? Does he try to see where someone else might be right? Trust me - it's not because he's more "right" than me, but because I am more "gracious" and more eager to find common ground and therefore more willing to pull back.

(KD is not the only one; I wont call out anyone else - but BOY do I want to. Not you daviddd)

Amtram
07-18-14, 02:55 PM
What a convenient way to shut down any questions or any discussion really.

I would imagine that was the writer's intent.

I think, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for proof that the earth is round and thankfully, in this case, there is plenty of proof that the earth really is round. It's always reasonable to ask for proof. That's what science is based on. Without the need for demonstrable proof it becomes religion. (If anything can ever be fundamentally and absolutely proved is another question but science doesn't make that claim).

Proof is for liquor and math! :)

Stevuke79
07-18-14, 02:55 PM
Yay liqor! yay math!

Amtram
07-18-14, 02:59 PM
That's exactly my question and what I don't really understand in the article. Which part of science is not good? Is it the possibility that scientists draw metaphysical conclusions from scientific facts?

No, it's that they don't. He's actually all about conclusions from the material world being drawn from the metaphysical and metaphysical ideas being used to fuel research in the physical world.

You're right about science being a method - but it needs something physical to be used. Anyone who complains about non-material things not getting supported by science or science not considering non-material things doesn't really understand what science does.

Amtram
07-18-14, 03:06 PM
That is exactly the point.Sceintific materialism intrudes into metaphysics without even grasping that it has long left behind the realms of the provable.
However it continues to assert the right of the senoir authority even when it has run off the edge of the cliff.
In this sense the scientific materialists are awfully like the Warner Brothers Coyote, who will keep on running in thin air after the Roadrunner until he looks down :)

Gee, scientists just can't win. The same people who want scientific validation for their non-materialistic concepts vilify science for testing the measurable aspects of the processes involved. The people who desperately seek scientific studies for their methods cry foul when science can't test the methods the way they want. You can't have it both ways. If you want science to work for you, then you need to provide something that can be subjected to the scientific method. If you can't provide that, then it's not science's fault that you don't get the results you want.

It's sort of like getting angry at automotive engineers when you put water in your gas tank and your car stops working.

Amtram
07-18-14, 03:10 PM
It assumes that mental illness cannot be caused by subconscious workings

Only flawed biology

That has been proven wrong

Not necessarily. Even neuroscientists are aware that there are multiple mechanisms for emotions and cognition that are not going to be revealed by scientific testing, which is why they're exploring only the things that *can* be. It doesn't mean that they are dry, dull individuals who have no creativity or ability to speculate.

They simply can't say anything definitive because they explore what is testable.

Amtram
07-18-14, 03:11 PM
I don't disagree with that but I don't think that's a problem with science in general. Maybe it is but I haven't seen it. I guess, the problem arises when scientists believe that the current state of knowledge is the final, irrefutable state of knowledge but that I'd argue is extremely unscientific.

I don't know too many who do - although that attitude is incredibly common among alt-med practitioners and adherents.

Amtram
07-18-14, 03:17 PM
However on the matter of whether life sciences are subject to "Spiritual forces" you are dead wrong.
There is very clear evidence to show that one's "View" of a given event profoundly alters the biological outcome of that event.

Whatever makes you think that I disagree with this?


Option a) You choose to believe that this is evidence that the universe sucks and everything always goes wrong.
You are plunged into an emotional state of gloom and up goes your cortisol. Suddenly a whole suite of genes that would be best left dormant are turned on-- and before long you are headed toards metabolic syndrome.

This is quite extreme. And oversimplified.

Option B) You choose to act "as if" a certain spiritual view were correct.
That spiritual view might me (for instance ) that you chose to be incarnated to learn form the experience- and that the failure you hav ejst experienced is a valuable life lesson.
As a result of the "spiritual view" you have chosen to adopt on an "as if " basis- you no longer see the world as a threatening, punishing place.
You see it as a giving place-- in this case giving you the life lesson taht ou needed to experience.

This outcome can be attained without the presence of any sort of spiritual view. Therefore, this does not in any way support the idea that a spiritual view is necessary. Nor do either of these scenarios illustrate a non-material phenomenon acting upon the material world.

Do you seriously thank that adopting that "spiritual view" does not have a measurable positive effect on your physiology?


How does this provide evidence that science is a defacement of reason?

Amtram
07-18-14, 03:23 PM
as what it is

complete biological reductionism

an insult to the human race

Then nobody's a materialist! Problem solved!

Understanding the underlying mechanisms in the material brain is important from a medical perspective. But thinking that these mechanisms are fixed, solid, predictable, and universal is not something that scientists do. This monolith of robotic, deterministic scientists insisting that they can know everything with some sort of a test is a strawman.

Amtram
07-18-14, 03:25 PM
Meditation, mindfulness and executive control: the importance of emotional acceptance and brain-based performance monitoring


id consider this non materialistic science

because emotional repression/dissociation is an aspect of non physical consciousness

Actually, this is wholly materialistic. How did they determine that mindfulness was having an effect? By measuring electrical activity in the brain.

daveddd
07-18-14, 03:33 PM
Then nobody's a materialist! Problem solved!

Understanding the underlying mechanisms in the material brain is important from a medical perspective. But thinking that these mechanisms are fixed, solid, predictable, and universal is not something that scientists do. This monolith of robotic, deterministic scientists insisting that they can know everything with some sort of a test is a strawman.

Nope. Your not always right Amtram


I'm very certain there is a large group of bioreductionists out there making fools of themselves

Ask Barkley. I already proved it earlier in the thread

Stevuke79
07-18-14, 03:34 PM
Actually, this is wholly materialistic. How did they determine that mindfulness was having an effect? By measuring electrical activity in the brain.

This is very true btw. OM doesn't cause us to rule out mechanisms we don't understand.

daveddd
07-18-14, 03:35 PM
Actually, this is wholly materialistic. How did they determine that mindfulness was having an effect? By measuring electrical activity in the brain.

You as usual missed the point

In order for acceptance to work. Subconsciius repression had to occur

Stevuke79
07-18-14, 03:42 PM
Nope. Your not always right Amtram


I'm very certain there is a large group of bioreductionists out there making fools of themselves

Ask Barkley. I already proved it earlier in the thread

You as usual missed the point

In order for acceptance to work. Subconsciius repression had to occur

I don't mean to pick on you - you're just the last poster. And I might find similar remarks from anyone else,.. but this is why these threads attract sarcasm rather than honest debate.

Think about it, what on EARTH did those points have to do with your point?
Do you think they're going to help you convince someone?
No! In fact, if they might have been willing to be convinced before, now they DEFINITELY can't let you convince them.

sarek
07-18-14, 03:54 PM
Here is a mod note for your convenience. I need you all to tone it down a bit. Please stay polite.

daveddd
07-18-14, 03:54 PM
Because of the arrogance that you complained of earlier

Yet thank now

Amtram
07-18-14, 04:02 PM
Nope. Your not always right Amtram

No, I'm not. I don't claim to be. However, in this case, the experiment was quite clearly being done on the testable (i.e., material) results of a partly non-material process. That's all science can do. "Material" means "existing in the physical world." That would describe brain waves that can be measured on an EEG.


I'm very certain there is a large group of bioreductionists out there making fools of themselves

Point them out if you find them. They shouldn't be making authoritative statements outside of their areas of expertise - and if they're making authoritative statements within their area of expertise, they're probably justified to some extent. What I see is that when scientists pontificate about something that may or may not be valid, other scientists with better knowledge will school them. Absolutists are not well-tolerated.

Ask Barkley. I already proved it earlier in the thread

I just re-read the entire thread and didn't find that.

SB_UK
07-18-14, 04:56 PM
It's maybe easier to work out what the question is and to answer it, than it is to work out exactly what how it is that we answered the question.

As far as I can see the material world is immaterial and so materialist science is just an illusion.

If people can agree that we want to arrive at the right answer - then that's all that science is.

Any method which gets us to the right answer.

What's the question ?

There is only 1 question.

How to eliminate human suffering ?

And ?

... ... and this subject has been done to death at least twice maybe more - between 2 and 3 000 years ago

- and so why're we still revisiting this basic question if we've nailed the answer ?

Because just when we're about to realise the answer, this desire for money and power sweeps over us and we're off in lala land attempting to gain cosmetic surgery after eating too many treacle tarts, purchased through a lucrative advertising contract signed with a cigarette corporation to purchase expensive clothes generated by 5 year olds in a sweat shop - whilst drinking polluted water to keep them alive just long enough to release the fashion house's 2014 collection.

Waylaid in a vat of treacle coated cow dung on the way to the forum.

http://www.sondheimguide.com/graphics/forumobc.jpg

Stevuke79
07-18-14, 05:26 PM
There is only 1 question.

How to eliminate human suffering ?

And ?

... ... and this subject has been done to death at least twice maybe more - between 2 and 3 000 years ago

- and so why're we still revisiting this basic question if we've nailed the answer ?

Because just when we're about to realise the answer, this desire for money and power sweeps over us and we're off in lala land attempting to gain cosmetic surgery after eating too many treacle tarts, purchased through a lucrative advertising contract signed with a cigarette corporation to purchase expensive clothes generated by 5 year olds in a sweat shop - whilst drinking polluted water to keep them alive just long enough to release the fashion house's 2014 collection.

Just in fairness to Davidd whom I picked on only because he was the last one to post, .. but not because he was even close to deserving. This is actually a much better example of what I was suggesting and what I feel like I see in these threads.

To me, this doesn't seem like the approach you take when you actually want an open and honest dialogue about science. Certainly not a dialogue that is open and honest to the extent that you are willing to concede a point yourself. I say this with respect, to me the things I underlined sound more like the approach you take when you want to either proclaim your superiority or someone else's inferiority. (that's aside from the fact that they also sound like the kind of thing you say when you want someone to feel bad. To me those underlined bits sound antagonistic, hurtful and insulting. To me they seem outside the standard of sensitivity that we otherwise demand in our threads. Doesn't anyone else feel like those remarks stand out compared to the tones we usually take?)

In other words, if our concern is truly science, what do the things I underlined have to do with science and how are they aiding the discussion?

I'm sincerely open to being wrong and having my eyes open if that's what I need. Please interpret no sarcasm on my part - I intend none.

Kunga Dorji
07-19-14, 01:13 AM
Gee, scientists just can't win. The same people who want scientific validation for their non-materialistic concepts vilify science for testing the measurable aspects of the processes involved. The people who desperately seek scientific studies for their methods cry foul when science can't test the methods the way they want. You can't have it both ways. If you want science to work for you, then you need to provide something that can be subjected to the scientific method. If you can't provide that, then it's not science's fault that you don't get the results you want.

It's sort of like getting angry at automotive engineers when you put water in your gas tank and your car stops working.

Amtram, the real problem here is that the scientific materialists are confusing their axioms with proven fact- and thus blinding themselves to much of reality. It puts a lot of people off science- which is a shame, because without a good analytical methodology we are in a difficult position.

However it needs to be understood that that is, at the end of the day all science is.

It is purely an analytical methodology- nothing else- and because of that it can only penetrate so far.

Kunga Dorji
07-19-14, 01:18 AM
Exactly,.. and I think that by correctly pointing out my poor terminology you're actually underlying the debate.

I have no idea if Martians drink tea, but unless the possibility is proposed ALONG WITH a way to disprove it, if I'm a scientist, I am perfectly justified in dismissing the suggestion. I am neither corrupt nor illogical for doing so.

I don't think that corrupt or illogical comes into it.

However- I think that dismissing the idea is a valid scientific approach.

If a concept cannot be disproven using current scientific methods then it must remain an open question. Sure- we can both agree that the existence of a Martian teapot is 1) very unlikely and 2) unlikely to have any impact on the conduct of our lives-- but that is not a scientific proof-- it is just a simple statement of what seems probable currently.

Kunga Dorji
07-19-14, 01:30 AM
I don't disagree with that but I don't think that's a problem with science in general. Maybe it is but I haven't seen it. I guess, the problem arises when scientists believe that the current state of knowledge is the final, irrefutable state of knowledge but that I'd argue is extremely unscientific.

It is not actually a problem with science in general.
It is a problem though in biomedical science and in the turf wars between the traditional medical profession and complementary therapists.

Amtram in another thread commented that I was advocating acupuncture for ADHD (which I never have done-- I dont know enough about it).

However acupuncture is a great case in point--
it has been round for 2500 years at least and is enthusiastically embraced by a population far greater than the population of all the major Western countries put together.

I do remember a time though when it was thought to be "quackery" simply because its detractors could not fit the theoretical model used by the dominant faction of scientific materialists in Western medicine.

However, nowadays it has proven efficacy in many medical conditions, and there are even special licences from the Australian Medical Board for medical acupuncturists. What is more, we are close to understanding the actual mechanism by which it works in terms of physics and biology rather than in the hard to understand model of traditional Chinese Medicine.

So-- for many years many Westerners have been deprived of a therapy which is cheap and safe, and has withstood the test of time-- simply because of the intense lobbying of people like Stephen Novella and Harriet Hall.

These people stop at nothing in terms of sneering comments about "woo woo". They would do well to listen to Bob Dylan and "Don't criticise what they can't understand".

This is the sort of misuse of the mantle of scientific authority which really troubles me.

SB_UK
07-19-14, 04:16 AM
Just in fairness to Davidd whom I picked on only because he was the last one to post, .. but not because he was even close to deserving. This is actually a much better example of what I was suggesting and what I feel like I see in these threads.

To me, this doesn't seem like the approach you take when you actually want an open and honest dialogue about science. Certainly not a dialogue that is open and honest to the extent that you are willing to concede a point yourself. I say this with respect, to me the things I underlined sound more like the approach you take when you want to either proclaim your superiority or someone else's inferiority. (that's aside from the fact that they also sound like the kind of thing you say when you want someone to feel bad. To me those underlined bits sound antagonistic, hurtful and insulting. To me they seem outside the standard of sensitivity that we otherwise demand in our threads. Doesn't anyone else feel like those remarks stand out compared to the tones we usually take?)

In other words, if our concern is truly science, what do the things I underlined have to do with science and how are they aiding the discussion?

I'm sincerely open to being wrong and having my eyes open if that's what I need. Please interpret no sarcasm on my part - I intend none.


The core problem is that science has to be performed hand in hand with morality.

There's no science without morality.

Standard empirical science cannot determine what is moral - the mind needs to do that for itself.

So the simple argument is - which experiment should we perform ?
Should we investigate a technique which makes the life of 1 person better? or the life of 1 town better ?

We'd (obviously) elect for science/technology which helps more people.

And therein lies the problem with science - it has to be underpinned by morality - otherwise the world might find itself modelling grass height in my back garden using the world's computing resource for no reason other than just because.

So to re-iterate - science/technology isn't objective.
There's an axiom to science/technology that life must become better as a consequence.

That axiom isn't encoded within the experimental method but projects effort ie determines what we apply ourselves to.

The problem we have with science/technology is that this basic axiom is flouted - and science/tech is driven by immoral funding ie biological warfare/chemical warfare/standard warfare using physics/engineering

- it's often said that thorium nuclear reactors aren't invested in because weapons grade uranium is not produced ... ... the internet was initially funded by the army ... ...

So back we come to the comment:
"Because just when we're about to realise the answer, this desire for money and power sweeps over us and we're off in lala land attempting to gain cosmetic surgery after eating too many treacle tarts, purchased through a lucrative advertising contract signed with a cigarette corporation to purchase expensive clothes generated by 5 year olds in a sweat shop - whilst drinking polluted water to keep them alive just long enough to release the fashion house's 2014 collection."

- which in 1 line is simply a statement that the motivation underlying true scientific endeavour must be moral (tend towards morality) and not immorality.
This stipulation completely trumps (is axiomatic) on what we actually (science/technology) do.

And the big fear we have - is that all people will of course agree that science/technology should be aimed at developing an optimal world for people - and then will just go off and do whatever they've a degree in, because it's all they know how to do. The morality argument is impossible to apply to people who do not know how moral their speciality is, in the grand context of things.

But how do we draw up a list of priorities - from most moral to least moral.

It's actually quite simple.

Ensure that all people have food/shelter (physiological needs) sustainably.
Then allow all people to do whatever they want (as long as it's sustainable) and does no harm.

-*-

Science is more akin (tends towards) to understanding
- and diverges away from what we call science currently which is technological innovations which maximise corporate profits.

SB_UK
07-19-14, 04:27 AM
In other words, if our concern is truly science, what do the things I underlined have to do with science and how are they aiding the discussion?



OK - now once again because I've used to many words in the post above.

You CANNOT divorce MORALITY from SCIENCE.

Empirical science has no simple method for determining whether it is the right thing to do.

The [completed] mind (globally logically consistent with human wellbeing) can though.

So - if we want to define science as some method for determining probability ie there's a 1 in 100 chance that if I walk across a road blindfold that I'll die ... ... then that very valid experimentla method MUST be weeded by morality

- a little voice which shouts - sure we can nail a result - but is it really worth it ?

Obviously - the example above would be difficult to disagree with ie it'd be hard to get funding to send blindfolded people across a road and to observe how many die ... ...

but as the problem domain becomes less extreme - the need for finer levels of morality are exposed.

So - I'd argue that beyond a first look for genes in complex disorders :) which was totally worthwhile - that what followed (see Namazu) for statistically significant associations of no clinical significance was IMMORAL
- because it never was (we all know this) going to lead us into helping the sick individuals

- and took money away from other disciplines which could.

-*-

So - my point is that MORALITY projects SCIENCE/TECH endeavour - and that this won't be happy news to the average scientist/technologist in this world
- because the fundamental axiom is flouted.

So - I'd argue that any research into finding genes in complex disorders is (beyond that really really useful first study when we discovered that we're not gonna' find any :eyebrow:) ... ... and that similarly (in the informational milieu) - that ANYTHING closed source (eg Microsoft) is immoral also ... ...
we're thereby given the eyes to see that not most of our tech/scientific thrust is not actually true scientific because they're not moral.

-*-

Final attempt -
what is science ? cannot be considered without defining what is moral ?

SB_UK
07-19-14, 04:36 AM
Now I'll take the opposite side.

Can we recharacterize finding 1000 statistically significant genes associated with disease moral ?
Can we recharacterize Microsoft as moral ?

Things become more interesting here.

Because in a society which is not moral - we may need to prove beyond any shadow of doubt (see genetics argument) that genes aren't going to lead anywhere ... ... before people make the necessary lifestyle changes.

And because we'd never fund (an immoral society which operates over money) the global informational backbone without closed source tech.

So - yes they're both immoral (the two above) - but necessary - since a predominantly immoral society (the basis to Christianity) weren't open to the moral (mind, scientifically correct) approaches of lifestyle changes (FASTing) and open source everything.

So - immoral means to an immoral people to assist immoral people in realising morality.

The important part is that science/technology is wholly subservient to morality (a set of hard logical rules defining what is best for people period).

Also important is the tendency towards the scientist/technician away from morality/empathy and more towards complexity in their chosen area of expertise ie to overcomplicate through confusion an individual into a level of expertise where his/her expert opinion cannot be challenged.

Very dangerous - recent study (can't find it) - that people defer completely (FMRI based) to people who they believe are experts.

SB_UK
07-19-14, 04:45 AM
In other words, if our concern is truly science, what do the things I underlined have to do with science and how are they aiding the discussion?



OK - now once again because I've used to many words in the post above.

You CANNOT divorce MORALITY from SCIENCE.

Empirical science has no simple method for determining whether it is the right thing to do.

The [completed] mind (globally logically consistent with human wellbeing) can though.

So - if we want to define science as some method for determining probability ie there's a 1 in 100 chance that if I walk across a road blindfold that I'll die ... ... then that very valid experimentla method MUST be weeded by morality

- a little voice which shouts - sure we can nail a result - but is it really worth it ?

Obviously - the example above would be difficult to disagree with ie it'd be hard to get funding to send blindfolded people across a road and to observe how many die ... ...

but as the problem domain becomes less extreme - the need for finer levels of morality are exposed.

So - I'd argue that beyond a first look for genes in complex disorders :) which was totally worthwhile - that what followed (see Namazu) for statistically significant associations of no clinical significance was IMMORAL
- because it never was (we all know this) going to lead us into helping the sick individuals

- and took money away from other disciplines which could.

-*-

So - my point is that MORALITY projects SCIENCE/TECH endeavour - and that this won't be happy news to the average scientist/technologist in this world
- because the fundamental axiom is flouted.

So - I'd argue that any research into finding genes in complex disorders is (beyond that really really useful first study when we discovered that we're not gonna' find any :eyebrow:) ... ... and that similarly (in the informational milieu) - that ANYTHING closed source (eg Microsoft) is immoral also ... ...
we're thereby given the eyes to see that not most of our tech/scientific thrust is not actually true scientific because they're not moral.

-*-

Final attempt -
what is science ? cannot be considered without defining what is moral ? and since what is science ? in this world relates to making money ie overwhelmingly immoral ? and that since reason tends towards morality -

that this is absolutely correct [in this world]
Science as Defacement of Reason
- but maybe not in the [FAST APPROACHING] next.

Why fast approaching ?
The internet permits very rapid recombination/selection (cf genetics) of ideas (memetic).

SB_UK
07-19-14, 08:14 AM
Why fast approaching ?
The internet permits very rapid recombination/selection (cf genetics) of ideas (memetic).


-> leads to -> species-wide convergence upon morality.

You know it makes sense.

Sense [human mind] = logical instructions consistent with species wellbeing

Amtram
07-19-14, 05:24 PM
Amtram, the real problem here is that the scientific materialists are confusing their axioms with proven fact- and thus blinding themselves to much of reality. It puts a lot of people off science- which is a shame, because without a good analytical methodology we are in a difficult position.

However it needs to be understood that that is, at the end of the day all science is.

It is purely an analytical methodology- nothing else- and because of that it can only penetrate so far.

Please show me some examples. I am in regular contact with biologists, doctors, geneticists, neuroscientists, even a couple of physicists and one astrophysicist. Daily. I'm reading research every single day, and these scientists share links with me that are both public access and private access covering a wide range of topics relevant to science - including ethics, journalism, public outreach, and other topics that would apply to this perception.

Again, I'm calling strawman. "Scientific Materialists." Show me where. Outside of science, which is, by definition, materialist. In fact, I'm in the middle of reading a very interesting piece on the mind by a neuroscientist, and it's a fascinating look at how his inquiry into the mind has driven his research on the brain.

"confusing their axioms with proven fact" Show me where. Scientists are regularly taking care with their language - and they don't have axioms in all branches of science, so they wouldn't have anything to confuse in the first place. For example, Kenrick Vezina writes on The Genetic Literacy Project: As a young science writer, I am sensitive to the perceived tide of reductionism in biology. It affects all of us, in science and in journalism. Even the GLP carries headlines that reflect a sensitivity—perhaps an exaggerated one—to concerns about reductionism; just recently we changed a ScienceDaily headline from “Scientists identify gene linking brain structure to intelligence”to “IQ gene? Uh-oh, scientists believe they have found one.” As well, there are only a small handful of "proven facts" in science, and scientists are not likely to confuse them.

I am also curious about how much we can find out about the physical world without a methodology of discovery. What can be discovered, indeed, without a methodology? Even an artist who discovers a new technique then needs to analyze how it was produced and develop a methodology to reproduce it. Leaving it to chance and hoping it will happen again will not penetrate at all.

Amtram
07-19-14, 05:40 PM
It is not actually a problem with science in general.
It is a problem though in biomedical science and in the turf wars between the traditional medical profession and complementary therapists.

The "turf war" started because CAM wanted to have the same recognition and be considered medicine despite lack of evidence, and lack of medical education of its practitioners. If you had studied every detail of something that was difficult and complex and devoted your life to performing your job under the strictest standards, you'd be a bit miffed if someone with a high school diploma or an associate's degree wanted to be considered just as expert as you.

Amtram in another thread commented that I was advocating acupuncture for ADHD (which I never have done-- I dont know enough about it).

That was only because I couldn't remember the words for cranio-sacral therapy or atlas profilax.

However acupuncture is a great case in point--
it has been round for 2500 years at least and is enthusiastically embraced by a population far greater than the population of all the major Western countries put together.

Argument from popularity. That does not change the fact that poking people in random places with a toothpick shows greater efficacy than acupuncture in large, blinded clinical trials.

So-- for many years many Westerners have been deprived of a therapy which is cheap and safe, and has withstood the test of time-- simply because of the intense lobbying of people like Stephen Novella and Harriet Hall.

They are simply reporting what has been found using rigorous scientific testing. This would be "shooting the messenger." They are highly visible, but they are far from the only people who are dismissive of CAM. Each doctor or scientist who is, though, is pointing to centuries of research that shows that the mechanism of action is biologically implausible, and hundreds of more recent studies that provide further evidence of inefficacy. Your irritation might be better directed at the scientists who have conducted the research, rather than the people who read and report on it. It will be a long list.

These people stop at nothing in terms of sneering comments about "woo woo". They would do well to listen to Bob Dylan and "Don't criticise what they can't understand".

But they do understand, because they have the education to know how the human body works and the numerous ways it might not, so they are already aware of how treatments couldn't possibly work on the things they claim to work on. Their certainty is only bolstered by the studies that clarify that this understanding is correct.

This is the sort of misuse of the mantle of scientific authority which really troubles me.

How is relying on evidence a misuse of scientific authority?

Kunga Dorji
07-19-14, 08:14 PM
That was only because I couldn't remember the words for cranio-sacral therapy or atlas profilax.


Amtram, this is actually a serious discussion here, about matters that have had myself and many colleagues of mine working hard for years.

Simply using a bait and switch tactic to bring acupuncture into the scene is not legitimate.

So here is the problem-
I suggest using a particular solution-- which, on reflection has great applications at the bare minimum for the dyspraxia that is part ofthe dysfunctional load on attention that affects the majority of ADHD individuals.

If you looked at my posts you would find that they are nuanced and targetted- not just randomly saying "do this and it will fix your ADHD stat".

Although it is possible I did overgeneralise in the first flush of my enthusiasm in late 2009, I think you will find that the message has been moderated and nuanced- and well referenced with supporting research since then.

However- the problem I have here is simply this-- you could not even be bothered to reference just exactly what was concerning you so you threw in a completely random comment about acupuncture - presumably to establish guilt by association.

I'm sorry Amtram, but that is not a proper or legitimate tactic in an argument. That is not my problem.


Argument from popularity. That does not change the fact that poking people in random places with a toothpick shows greater efficacy than acupuncture in large, blinded clinical trials.

Which trials?
Can you please reference them and I will go and hunt down the original articles, even if I have to pay for them online. I will deal with 3 articles only-
and then maybe we will see whether or not there are methodological problems with the trials.

Again- the problem here is not science- but a SELECTION BIAS that chooses "which papers exist and are valid, and which are not".

I have actually learned to apply acupressure to acupressure points to manage the residual arthritis in my spine.
So- I can tell you that acupuncture, acupressure points are anatomically identifiable, and that when they are active-- they hurt.

So- that leaves me with a problem-- I cannot see how you would be able to do a proper double blind trial.
A proper acupuncture treatment consists of a comprehensive assessment of a health problem and a targetted application of needles to problems relevant to the clinical presentation. That model of clinical management does not lend itself to RCTs-- and the inability of Medicine to dela with anything but RCT evidence is a defect in the over rigid imagining of "What science is"


As a genuinely interesting aside-
It turns out now that we do have a physiologically plausible explanation for both the acupuncture meridians and the acupuncture points.
It is too much to go into here in detail, but essentially the acupuncture meridians appear to be planes of low electrical resistance in the fascial planes that bundle together functionally similar units of muscle.
It appears that fascia has piezo-electric properties and the meridians are channels that allow transimission of DC electrical current.
Presumably this has a role in the integration of movement
(IE The K1 Meridian correlates to a muscle plane called the superficial back line- which unites a series of functionally integrated muscles involved with extension and stretching).
A large number of the acupoints (though not all to the best of my knowledge) can be physically identified as small indentations in the fascia- palpable to a light touch- but missed if ones clinical examination technique is too heavy handed. They are actually small perforations carrying a "venule-arteriole nerve" complex which amongst other functions, supplies rich afferent information to the sympathetic nervous system.


So- the no "physiologically plausible mechanism" argument against Acupuncture is now dead. It has been for about 10 years probably as best as I can see.

As for the research- it is now being translated out of Chinese into English.
It will be readily available soon - in torrents.

SB_UK
07-20-14, 02:41 AM
Wow!

- recruiting acupuncture, alpha stim and fasting into the same basic mechanism.

Like a bird on the wire,
like a drunk in a midnight choir
I have tried in my way to be free.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jun/28/men-who-made-us-spend-jacques-peretti

- covers a $250 billion industry - heavily endorsed by medically qualified personnel (described on the show yesterday) whilst featuring NO medically proven modality (NIH - described on the show yesterday).

Why does this industry exist ?
Fear of death (answered on the show).

But you are going to die.

Freedom 'd be from the fear of dying.
But how ?
Well - we've a couple of chaps from 2 to 3,000 years ago who're (to be fair) jolly famous and answered the question - but do we listen ?

Why do birds not get electrocuted when landing on power lines? (https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061020121347AA7dsHP)

The ground fields an electric current and I'm pretty sure that ensuring that that current passes through us optimally is essential for health.

-*-

question

Does yoga eliminate 'knots' at myofascial trigger points ?
Permit electrical flow throughout body.
Relaxation.

Big fan of massage but yoga should work also.

Only guy who has helped my back speciaized in myofascial release.

Haven't been for 20 years and just found out that Mel is on Youtube.

Yay!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igmmoqJIiqA

Here's my key trigger point - can feel it constantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P8vkCFNCyM

[piriformis]

-*-

Thinking collagen network for transmission of electrical or electrical counterpart energy.

SB_UK
07-20-14, 03:24 AM
These results suggest that electrical stimulation combined with a collagen matrix may be a method to enhance the healing of chronic dermal wounds.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3209603

Take home message would be flexibility + hydration for optimal electrical properties - noting that poor diet/stress/obesity lead to inflexibility

- finding that muscles relax on fasting eg piriformis starts a peculiar irregular pattern of release like contraction but the opposite - very nice, strange.

why ?

pro-GABA -> ketone bodies
muscle relaxant -> benzodiazepene -> pro-GABA

Essential for flexibility

fasting ascetic flexible yoga yogis.

http://wildyogi.info/sites/default/files/DannyLakeEdpadHalfLotus.jpg

SB_UK
07-20-14, 04:33 AM
Core problem with fasting is that you have to get into a special place.

In this place you haven't the capacity to deal with lying solar panel salesmen, lying scientific lab bosses, lying surveyors, lying estate agents, lying neighbours, lying children [that's a biggy!] ... ... and all within the last day.

It really wears you out.

All that we need is to be free from psychological stress so we can descend into fasted exercise including stretching.

Human beings are (currently) the problem (cause of human suffering) and can be the solution - as long as voluntaryism [reward/motivation paradigm = personal] is used to usurp capitalism [reward/motivation paradigm = wrong, evil, money].

There's an inverse relationship between complete mind and capacity to gain reward/motivation from material world factors (money/power)
- or in simple language - the more you're motivated by money (obvious to anybody by looking at you, your clothes, your house) - the THICKER (more stupid, more dangerously evil, more immoral, more primitive) you are.
Just being poor isn't enough - you need to be repelled by the thought of material reward because personal reward has taken its place.
Wannabe rich people are just as dangerous as those most addicted to wealth.

-*-

I think that's why flexible ascetic fasting spiritual vegetarian sun loving quiet yogis get the **** away from human beings.
Who wants to be around a money grabbing grubby lowlife capitalist/consumerist parasite ?
[B]Who wants to be around a money grabbing grubby lowlife capitalist/consumerist parasite who loves money.
Where the love/desire for money is the root of all ----.

Monks unable to keep their mouths shut were insulated from the community by placing them in the monastery shop to serve customers from the viciously corrupt outside world.

Amtram
07-20-14, 11:20 AM
Simply using a bait and switch tactic to bring acupuncture into the scene is not legitimate.

Anomia from brain surgery is not "bait and switch."

However- the problem I have here is simply this-- you could not even be bothered to reference just exactly what was concerning you so you threw in a completely random comment about acupuncture - presumably to establish guilt by association.

No, as I said, I forgot. This is a common problem for me lately, because I had a 9cm tumor that compressed my brain and has compromised my ability to recall nouns and names. I do my best, but there are times that no amount of trying will bring me the word I need. This is not going to ever go away for me. Thanks for your understanding.

Which trials?
Can you please reference them and I will go and hunt down the original articles, even if I have to pay for them online. I will deal with 3 articles only-
and then maybe we will see whether or not there are methodological problems with the trials.

How about meta-analyses that cover multiple trials for the efficacy of a particular practice on a particular result?

"Acupuncture and chronic pain: A criteria-based meta-analysis"

A literature search revealed 51 controlled clinical studies on the effectiveness of acupuncture in chronic pain. These studies were reviewed using a list of 18 predefined methodological criteria. A maximum of 100 points for study design could be earned in four main categories: (a) comparability of prognosis, (b) adequate intervention, (c) adequate effect measurement and (d) data presentation.

The quality of even the better studies proved to be mediocre. No study earned more than 62% of the maximum score. The results from the better studies (⩾ 50% of the maximum score) are highly contradictory. The efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain remains doubtful.


"Acupuncture for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"


Sham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control on IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from pharmacological therapies. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or patients' greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drugs.


"Efficacy of acupuncture in fibromyalgia syndrome—a systematic review with a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials"


Conclusion. A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was present, which, however, was not clearly distinguishable from bias. Thus, acupuncture cannot be recommended for the management of FMS.

Again- the problem here is not science- but a SELECTION BIAS that chooses "which papers exist and are valid, and which are not".

The ones that are valid are randomized, controlled, at least single-blinded, with large numbers and good p-values.

A proper acupuncture treatment consists of a comprehensive assessment of a health problem and a targetted application of needles to problems relevant to the clinical presentation. That model of clinical management does not lend itself to RCTs-- and the inability of Medicine to dela with anything but RCT evidence is a defect in the over rigid imagining of "What science is"

If a treatment is impossible to test using scientific methods, then it isn't science-based medicine. Either you present your modality in a way that is compatible with scientific testing, or you stop complaining that you can't get scientific validation. You can't have it both ways. (As for the clinical aspect, that is frequently included as a criterion because it is known to have a therapeutic effect on subjective symptoms.)

Fortune
07-20-14, 11:46 AM
luckily everyone doesn't listen to scientists who dismiss everything that isn't "proven" (sorry about the quotes, but i find it comical some of the things that are claimed to be proven in mental illness)

id probably be dead if i did

This basically sounds like wishful thinking. Like reading the results of one study that have not been reproduced anywhere and producing an authoritative and contentious claim based on said study.

Which is to say that skepticism about things that do not have much (or in some cases in the examples I am thinking of any) empirical backing is not comical, it's rational.

One example might be claiming that a particular treatment modality has considerable evidence supporting its efficacy, but when you read the actual relevant studies, these findings have yet to be confirmed in further studies. So - do you believe the person who wants those treatment modalities to work so much that they're willing to assert that a few studies with small sample sizes equates to "this treatment is definitely extremely effective" or does the person who says, "you know, there's just not enough data to conclude that yet" have any credibility?

Fortune
07-20-14, 11:48 AM
Ok,.. I have to go get some work done, but we can at least say that focusing only on "disprovable" theories, at least saves time? And if we're including the non-disprovable there are an infinite number of things we can include. Which means the limitations on what we DO KNOW is overextending itself into our selection bias. For instance how do I know it's a martian tea-pot and not a martian french-press?

If a theory isn't falsifiable (disprovable) it's not actually science.

(but I think you know that).

daveddd
07-20-14, 12:30 PM
This basically sounds like wishful thinking. Like reading the results of one study that have not been reproduced anywhere and producing an authoritative and contentious claim based on said study.

Which is to say that skepticism about things that do not have much (or in some cases in the examples I am thinking of any) empirical backing is not comical, it's rational.

One example might be claiming that a particular treatment modality has considerable evidence supporting its efficacy, but when you read the actual relevant studies, these findings have yet to be confirmed in further studies. So - do you believe the person who wants those treatment modalities to work so much that they're willing to assert that a few studies with small sample sizes equates to "this treatment is definitely extremely effective" or does the person who says, "you know, there's just not enough data to conclude that yet" have any credibility?

what?

what is your point?

daveddd
07-20-14, 12:38 PM
wishful thinking doesn't scientifically exist

chemicals react or they don't

Amtram
07-20-14, 01:24 PM
Fortune's point is that if you look at a study done by a group or individual who is/are highly invested in a positive outcome that shows astonishingly positive results, you look carefully at the methods used to see if they stand up to scrutiny. Then you compare that against the results found by others studying the same thing.

If the positive study had a small number of subjects, was not randomized, had inadequate or no control subjects, was not blinded, left out pieces of statistical information, came to a conclusion that was not justified by the results (often this may be "requires further study") then you need to question its value.

If you then look for other studies and find that the positive one stands alone against many others showing no results or negative results, then it's not likely to have any value.

In science, as in many other things, there is such a thing as "too good to be true." Since most alternative practices contend that all diseases and conditions can be treated or cured using a single approach, they all fall under that category. It is a "defacement of reason" to claim that a single approach can take care of multiple problems that stem from multiple different causes.

daveddd
07-20-14, 01:29 PM
well whatever, i don't understand the point of quoting me there'

sit around and wait for science to prove everything in psychology , unfortunately its going to be a long, long time

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 02:08 PM
If a theory isn't falsifiable (disprovable) it's not actually science.

That's been my entire and only point in this thread. So I think we agree.

Now to convince KD and SB :)

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 02:19 PM
There's no science without morality... You CANNOT divorce MORALITY from SCIENCE.

I don't know what that means. I'm pretty sure that statement is actually false.

Aside from what it means, clearly it's purpose is to justify the use of an ethical argument and personal attacks to make a scientific point. In other words, when arguing against a society's scientific methods, all you have to do is talk about that societies materialism and your point about it's science is made. Disprove it's ethics and you've disproved it's science.

But if I don't accept such a statement I would demand that a scientific point would require a scientific argument. If an ethical argument were made in it's place, I would think that my opponent simply wishes to insult me, which he would do only if he were at a loss for a scientific argument.

Obviously I don't know you from Adam. But it's this approach of yours that makes it very hard to imagine that science is actually your field.

daveddd
07-20-14, 02:29 PM
I don't know what that means. I'm pretty sure that statement is actually false.

Aside from what it means, clearly it's purpose is to justify the use of an ethical argument and personal attacks to make a scientific point. In other words, when arguing against a society's scientific methods, all you have to do is talk about that societies materialism and your point about it's science is made. Disprove it's ethics and you've disproved it's science.

But if I don't accept such a statement I would demand that a scientific point would require a scientific argument. If an ethical argument were made in it's place, I would think that my opponent simply wishes to insult me, which he would do only if he were at a loss for a scientific argument.

Obviously I don't know you from Adam. But it's this approach of yours that makes it very hard to imagine that science is actually your field.

i guess to me, hearing things from someone who has done this for a living for a long time is worth listening to

id prefer that over insulting them and trying to "teach" and "convince" the actual scientist

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 03:03 PM
i guess to me, hearing things from someone who has done this for a living for a long time is worth listening to

id prefer that over insulting them and trying to "teach" and "convince" the actual scientist

That's an ad hominem argument. It's usually used to debunk something but it can also be used to prove it.

He's a scientist, therefore his arguments are valid.

That's not a valid argument from either of you. I would like more of a scientific discussion. I would think an established scientist would have more to add to such a discussion, .. rather than be exempted from it. If he is an established scientist, I would like to hear arguments closer to the types he used to get to that point in his life.

daveddd
07-20-14, 03:22 PM
I just think the world needs less black and white and more people who think for themselves

Maybe psycology would get somewhere

daveddd
07-20-14, 03:22 PM
Obviously something makes him feel that way

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 03:32 PM
Obviously something makes him feel that way

And if that "something" is scientific, it's relevant to the discussion and I'd like him to share it with us.

daveddd
07-20-14, 03:34 PM
I've seen him map out scientic jargon. It was over my head

Just gets insulted. The normal

Drewbacca
07-20-14, 03:43 PM
If you ask me to substantiate this assertion with data, you will be simply revealing your naiveté about what's going on: it's like asking for proof that the Earth is round.You know, it's really quit simple to empirically prove that the Earth is round... so the author saying that he doesn't need to back up his opinion with data is nothing more than a cop-out.

Question. Why is it that these anti-science types are always trying to promote a book? Must be a coincidence.

Anyways, the linked article is the epitome of fluff... lots of words, but not much of a point. He throws in some random names (generally the ones with the biggest following) and conveniently groups them all together is if they have one in the same opinion or approach (they don't). He then takes this grouping and asks rhetorical questions with an implication that maybe they are in the minority of those with a science background and are simply the most vocal (bs, science demands data and to lack this is not science). The whole blog is really just a collection of fallacies, lacking a clear and concise argument.

His argument leads you down a rabbit-hole if you just follow along with the author's logic. He even has the audacity to imply that those he is critiquing are the ones with flawed logic (red herring).. but any student of logic and rhetoric could write a thirty page paper tearing this article apart... no need to question the science, it doesn't hold up to a standard that would pass a philosophy class.

Why would anyone write a blog post attacking established science as somehow being illogical and then end with references to Hindu gods? Talk of channeling energies? Fluff.

So what exactly is the point of this blog post? The gist of it is this:


I, Bernardo Kastrup, don't like science because it challenges my beliefs.
I claim to come from a scientific background in order to make my rant seem objective.
I will lump mainstream science together and paint it with a broad brush that holds no meaning or consistency.
I will attack science as some how lacking logic but I will provide no evidence for this claim.
I will present a false dichotomy of what I consider science and what I consider non-science. I will present scientists as some sort of opposite to fields like psychology and poetry and expect you the reader to blindly go along with it, as I offer no supporting arguments for this (although, you could buy my book!!!)


Of course, no need for evidence and data, the author established that right at the beginning. It's not a question of whether this article is "science" or not... it doesn't even pass the criteria set forth in a freshman level Logic course (https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+open+course&pws=0&gws_rd=ssl) in college. You'd think that an author that accuses his opponent of circular reasoning would have the courtesy of avoiding the use of it himself?

What's my take away from this? Science and other are not two opposing systems of belief. The dichotomy created by the author only exists from his point of view. A scientific mind is not illogical or making use of faulty logic (perhaps specific examples are, but the author doesn't offer any of those and there is no attempt to quantify how common such examples are assuming they exist).

*edit to add* just for the record, I can't stand Dawkins or his approach. I'm not a fan of belittling anything that doesn't meet Dawkins' criteria of soundness. I think he insults to often and he lacks an understanding of opposing points of view. I can see where the author of the OP's link sees a dichotomy when you consider guys like Dawkins and his frequent attacks on faith (of any kind). However, Dawkins does not represent science or the scientific method... he just uses it as a basis from which to stand on a soap-box and attack anyone who disagrees with him. As much as I hate fluff-science, I am equally opposed to his approach and attitude.

SB_UK
07-20-14, 04:03 PM
This discussion is silly - if it's not falsifiable then it's not a particular type of science.

My car is a particular type of vehicle - but so's an aeroplane
- and where it may be impractical to take an aeroplane to buy today's paper - getting from England to the sun will require one.

Science is a tool for making sense -

but the structure of mind which makes sense (a logical model) isn't amenable to empirical science.

Empirical science is just a tool in building mind.

It's not the only tool.

Once again the Higgs Boson was hypothesized 50 years before it was empirically proven.

So - the key tool here appears to be the accumulation of information into a sensible model.

The human imagination tying together observations (logical model) was (much later) backed up by empirical science - but really if there're no other imaginable possibilities - then what were we expecting ? If the only other possibility was NOT what we're testing ie there were no other potentials imaginable ... ... then ... ...

The most important aspect to science is human imagination.

Psychology (a model of understanding of reality) is wholly in control of the tool - and the thought experiment need not utilise empirical science if there's no other imaginable solution to the problem.

-*-

However - who cares about any of this ?

We've a hardcore problem.

How to help people like this ?
http://www.additudemag.com/adhdblogs/32/index.html
And not wasting time playing games.

For the most part all I'm seeing is 'experts' getting in the way.

Solution to her problem would be to get her kid into contact with others with similar problems - ADDer kids (dev delayed) are going to be scarred for life in an environment where they're constantly considered thick.

Experts though preferring to spend their time working out whether the ADDer's 345th neurone connects to another one expressing a receptor for Woggle

- thing is - is that who cares ???

We need to know what is ADD ? how to help ADDer ? and science is just turning up mounds of noise which aren't helping anybody.

So psychosocial over neurogenetics of ADHD
- cos neurogenetics aren't going to help the people in need.

SB_UK
07-20-14, 04:13 PM
Typical ADHD problem.

(http://www.additudemag.com/adhdblogs/32/10805.html)"I Want Friends, But They Don’t Want Me"

(http://www.additudemag.com/adhdblogs/32/10805.html) My son might as well have a "kick me" sign on his back when it comes to his peers.


I think you'd have to be pretty dense if you thought that any neurogenetic info 'd help the child or parent.

So the takehome message 'd be that the overwhelming majority employed in the neurogenetics of ADHD aren't really concerned about the afflicted/relatives.

You can hear the fake cries of protestation in the making.

Thing is is that it's your actions and not your words which matter.

If an individual is taking emphasis away from modalities which can help ADDers - then that individual is prolonging suffering.

Drewbacca
07-20-14, 04:33 PM
An interesting question might be whether OM is to the scientists a belief or a method. I'm not sure I actually care,.. but if that were the question the article would then be boring; this would be a step up from facile.

Well written generally tends to be boring... sadly.
Fluff, tends to be exciting and novel.

Just look at television these days with the "History" channel focusing much of its time on "ancient aliens" and Animal Planet broadcasting pseudo-documentaries about mermaids.

Personally, I prefer boring. The less the appeal to our human emotions in the writing, the better.

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 04:39 PM
Well written generally tends to be boring... sadly.
Fluff, tends to be exciting and novel.

Just look at television these days with the "History" channel focusing much of its time on "ancient aliens" and Animal Planet broadcasting pseudo-documentaries about mermaids.

Personally, I prefer boring. The less the appeal to our human emotions in the writing, the better.

Yes, I agree. If the point were whether OM was a belief or a method, it would be a step up. By boring I meant useless.

But as it stands this article is not "useless" which as I said would be a step up. It is facile. Which is to say much more exciting, but B*S.

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 04:40 PM
I've seen him map out scientic jargon. It was over my head

Just gets insulted. The normal

That's not normal for an expert in a field. If you can't explain it, you don't understand it.

Drewbacca
07-20-14, 05:27 PM
But as it stands this article is not "useless" which as I said would be a step up. It is facile. Which is to say much more exciting, but B*S.

Having finally caught up reading this entire thread... I have to say that I have a better idea of what the author *might* have been trying to communicate. I definitely have a different take on how the collective minds of this forum interpret the article than my take on the original article as written.

My response to the collective understanding of this forum, I would say that:

Science is a method, not a system (belief or otherwise). True science requires evidence but that evidence is itself hard to pin down (which is in harmony with what what davedd and SB and others are trying to pick apart). Some things can not be measured, that doesn't imply that they don't exist, we just lack the ability to empirically study it.

So, when someone like Dawkins comes along saying that we can't measure it therefor it doesn't exist... then I totally get the point of the OP. We can't assume that something doesn't exist simply because we can't measure it (yet). On the same coin, we shouldn't be writing books about topics that we can't measure (yet) and arguing that anyone who is in opposition to our unproven theory is somehow illogical or biased or whatever. Or to take it a step further, if we build new theories on top of unproven theories, we are building a house of cards. Science inherently tries to not build a house of cards and prefers a tested foundation... pseudo-science is more than happy to build a house of cards.

I find it in poor taste to be critical of building a solid foundation (vague and generalized criticisms of OM). Likewise, I find it in poor taste to criticize the first layer of the card house as being unsubstantial... that card could end up being a stone... but I do think it's fair to be critical when layer upon layer is placed on top of a flimsy foundation.

What is science, to me? An idea that is tested. If it fails that test, then either a) we were completely wrong b) we performed the wrong test c) we performed the test incorrectly or d) we lack the ability to measure (what was radiation before we figured out how to measure it?).

Nothing is inherently dis-proven, we just have yet to find an appropriate approach. That's all fine and dandy, until we try to use these unfounded ideas to explain other ideas or to heal the body. Fire is not a tool to be trifled with when you only know how to collect it from a lightening strike.

My response to the article in the OP on the other hand...

It's poorly written, not clear, and not supported...as you say, facile, which is DEAD ON! it's not that it's wrong because it's not logical (although, it's not logical due to generalizations, primarily) or because it's unscientific (again, it's not scientific as it isn't tested or even objective) or anything like that because first and foremost, it's simply lacking -so, no need to criticize it beyond that.

It would seem to appeal to the choir and no one else because they are reading between the lines and getting something out of it that I do not... which is based on an acceptance of some of his points which I take issue with (well, most of them really). At least the group-think of this forum has given me a different perspective on it and maybe I'll read the New Dawn article later since Fuzzy thought it was better writing.

daveddd
07-20-14, 05:51 PM
That's not normal for an expert in a field. If you can't explain it, you don't understand it.

This is silly

Because I didn't understand something it's not true

I'm not a professional scientist like you

This is starting to get out of control Steve

Drew baca. Nicely put and way to see both sides of the coin

Drewbacca
07-20-14, 05:54 PM
Proof for Einstein's theory actually came many years after the theory was proposed.


True, but I believe Einstein was also aware of how controversial his theory was. He knew it would take time to prove or disprove some of his ideas. He wasn't trying to capitalize on sales of a book promoting his ideas in the same way that modern authors are. Apples:Oranges.

Besides, BK is suspect. He has a PhD, in CS of all things... so he's clearly intelligent and well educated in computing-logic and mathematics. Is he as well versed as say a Bertrand Russell to speak on the topic of the philosophy of science? Has BK written any papers on the topic of the philosophy of science (or as I suspect, just non peer reviewed books and blogs)? Has he written any papers using statistical analysis in the social sciences or performed any lab work in the biological/chemical sciences? Or is he out of his element?

Whatever the case, he doesn't build on his own credentials or cite any of his experience. He uses it as a qualification without expanding on it. Whether or not he is qualified to speak on such a topic is unknown. It's like he handed us a two word resume and left us to fill in the blanks. I can't fault Amtram for being inherently critical of the guy when he fails to make his own case.

It's the whole Occam's Razor thing... is he researching to prove a point? or is he establishing a point and then finding evidence that supports it (basically cherry picking). Just because someone has a qualification beside their name does not guarantee objectivity, let alone being a respected author on the topic. So what do we see right off the boat? We see a blog, pop-science books written for commercial gain, and his articles being posted by new-age sites... to me, these are bells&whistles, that he's trying to promote a deeply held view rather than attempting to verify one.

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 06:53 PM
This is silly

Because I didn't understand something it's not true

I'm not a professional scientist like you

This is starting to get out of control Steve

Drew baca. Nicely put and way to see both sides of the coin

That's not what I said at all.

I said if you understand something, then you can explain it. By modus tollens, if you can't explain it, then you don't really understand it.

daveddd
07-20-14, 07:29 PM
That's not what I said at all.

I said if you understand something, then you can explain it. By modus tollens, if you can't explain it, then you don't really understand it.

well steve

do think you think "modus tollens" accounts for the disorder of written expression that affects about 60-80% of adheres


i mean, its pretty obvious who it effects,

daveddd
07-20-14, 07:35 PM
This discussion is silly - if it's not falsifiable then it's not a particular type of science.

My car is a particular type of vehicle - but so's an aeroplane
- and where it may be impractical to take an aeroplane to buy today's paper - getting from England to the sun will require one.

Science is a tool for making sense -

but the structure of mind which makes sense (a logical model) isn't amenable to empirical science.

Empirical science is just a tool in building mind.

It's not the only tool.

Once again the Higgs Boson was hypothesized 50 years before it was empirically proven.

So - the key tool here appears to be the accumulation of information into a sensible model.

The human imagination tying together observations (logical model) was (much later) backed up by empirical science - but really if there're no other imaginable possibilities - then what were we expecting ? If the only other possibility was NOT what we're testing ie there were no other potentials imaginable ... ... then ... ...

The most important aspect to science is human imagination.

Psychology (a model of understanding of reality) is wholly in control of the tool - and the thought experiment need not utilise empirical science if there's no other imaginable solution to the problem.

-*-

However - who cares about any of this ?

We've a hardcore problem.

How to help people like this ?
http://www.additudemag.com/adhdblogs/32/index.html
And not wasting time playing games.

For the most part all I'm seeing is 'experts' getting in the way.

Solution to her problem would be to get her kid into contact with others with similar problems - ADDer kids (dev delayed) are going to be scarred for life in an environment where they're constantly considered thick.

Experts though preferring to spend their time working out whether the ADDer's 345th neurone connects to another one expressing a receptor for Woggle

- thing is - is that who cares ???

We need to know what is ADD ? how to help ADDer ? and science is just turning up mounds of noise which aren't helping anybody.

So psychosocial over neurogenetics of ADHD
- cos neurogenetics aren't going to help the people in need.

i agree, great post

I'm reading up on the opiate/social reward thing you've mentioned

maybe you can PM me some info

daveddd
07-20-14, 07:37 PM
I'm finding some fascinating connections , you may be onto something

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 07:44 PM
This discussion is silly - if it's not falsifiable then it's not a particular type of science.

True.

The particular type that results in VERIFIABLE conclusions. That's not necessarily important to everyone.

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 07:45 PM
well steve

do think you think "modus tollens" accounts for the disorder of written expression that affects about 60-80% of adheres


i mean, its pretty obvious who it effects,

:scratch:

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 07:47 PM
Excellent post!
Having finally caught up reading this entire thread... I have to say that I have a better idea of what the author *might* have been trying to communicate. I definitely have a different take on how the collective minds of this forum interpret the article than my take on the original article as written.

My response to the collective understanding of this forum, I would say that:

Science is a method, not a system (belief or otherwise). True science requires evidence but that evidence is itself hard to pin down (which is in harmony with what what davedd and SB and others are trying to pick apart). Some things can not be measured, that doesn't imply that they don't exist, we just lack the ability to empirically study it.

So, when someone like Dawkins comes along saying that we can't measure it therefor it doesn't exist... then I totally get the point of the OP. We can't assume that something doesn't exist simply because we can't measure it (yet). On the same coin, we shouldn't be writing books about topics that we can't measure (yet) and arguing that anyone who is in opposition to our unproven theory is somehow illogical or biased or whatever. Or to take it a step further, if we build new theories on top of unproven theories, we are building a house of cards. Science inherently tries to not build a house of cards and prefers a tested foundation... pseudo-science is more than happy to build a house of cards.

I find it in poor taste to be critical of building a solid foundation (vague and generalized criticisms of OM). Likewise, I find it in poor taste to criticize the first layer of the card house as being unsubstantial... that card could end up being a stone... but I do think it's fair to be critical when layer upon layer is placed on top of a flimsy foundation.

What is science, to me? An idea that is tested. If it fails that test, then either a) we were completely wrong b) we performed the wrong test c) we performed the test incorrectly or d) we lack the ability to measure (what was radiation before we figured out how to measure it?).

Nothing is inherently dis-proven, we just have yet to find an appropriate approach. That's all fine and dandy, until we try to use these unfounded ideas to explain other ideas or to heal the body. Fire is not a tool to be trifled with when you only know how to collect it from a lightening strike.

My response to the article in the OP on the other hand...

It's poorly written, not clear, and not supported...as you say, facile, which is DEAD ON! it's not that it's wrong because it's not logical (although, it's not logical due to generalizations, primarily) or because it's unscientific (again, it's not scientific as it isn't tested or even objective) or anything like that because first and foremost, it's simply lacking -so, no need to criticize it beyond that.

It would seem to appeal to the choir and no one else because they are reading between the lines and getting something out of it that I do not... which is based on an acceptance of some of his points which I take issue with (well, most of them really). At least the group-think of this forum has given me a different perspective on it and maybe I'll read the New Dawn article later since Fuzzy thought it was better writing.

daveddd
07-20-14, 07:55 PM
:scratch:

you're scratching now, but the itch may not appear till later

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 08:20 PM
When you exchange scientific ideas with someone, you're exchanging with everyone they've ever exchanged with...

Drewbacca
07-20-14, 08:43 PM
When you exchange scientific ideas with someone, you're exchanging with everyone they've ever exchanged with...

Same could be said for an STD... :lol:

Stevuke79
07-20-14, 08:53 PM
What does that tell us about science?

SB_UK
07-21-14, 04:10 AM
i agree, great post

I'm reading up on the opiate/social reward thing you've mentioned

maybe you can PM me some info

Still thinking ... ... ...

From Peripheral's rat park experiment - deviation from ideal living conditions drives an individual reactively into opiate seeking behaviour.

Sweet/fatty foods activate the opiate system (as evidenced by naloxone).

It's clear that ADDers are not obtaining reward/gaining motivation from the life we're made to lead (ie learning information which isn't useful, spending one's time working on pointless ventures, the worship of money)
- and so motivation in a bottle (dopamine) and pain-relief in a bottle (indirect opiate system activation) become required.

If ADDers aren't gaining reward/activation from the lives we're expected (by society) to live - then what're the alternatives.

There's a PFC (selfish) and an ACC (social) reward system.
PFC - prefrontal cortex
ACC - anterior cingulate cortex.

We're either PFC broken, ACC enabled or have no reward system.

PFC broken is the option we often hear.
No reward system isn't an option - see KD's reference to an animal model without reward system - dies without the desire to even eat food placed in front of it.

ACC enabled - this is clearly the correct answer - though you'd need to be an ADDer to know it.

How would one prove it ?
Well - in ADDers who aren't damaged by life in dumbo world (because ADDers are driven to addiction, prison etc)
- we need to simply find out what the ADDer can find rewarding/motivational ie is able to do without the need for dopaminergic/opiate medication.

I know the answer - but this answer won't be accepted by others because n==1 ... ... except there's a natural resistance - because it completely scuppers all standard experimental studies in standard medical research to accept (even understand) that an experimental study of the form I'd need - is completely prevented by the confounding effect of society.

You'd need a society of ADDers outside of hierarchy, money, ownership - before we'd be able to set up an experiment
- completely rejecting the idea of an experimental platform for testing this idea
- but NOT rejecting the idea.

So - once again - we've the idea that a logical model featuring connected reasoning does not require (particularly if one is not possible) any standard experimental design for validation.
The core problem though is that if you are a specialist with skills in this one thing then you're going to reactively reject the idea that your own speciality is of no use in arriving at the right answer to the question that you've been tasked with divining.

Kunga Dorji
07-21-14, 04:22 AM
True.

The particular type that results in VERIFIABLE conclusions. That's not necessarily important to everyone.

If it is "not falsifiable" then all that means is that the scientists who are attempting to falsify the proposition simply do not understand the initial proposition in sufficient detail to break it down into subunits that can be tested.

So- if "it" is not falsifiable, "it" remains a live possibility until the scientists who would try to falsify it mature a little in their own understanding of the question being posited.

Dizfriz has commented, rightly, that science can prove nothing.
It can only disprove.
If science cannot disprove a theorem, then scientists have no right to comment upon that theorem and expect that their status as scientists makes their opinion on the matter in question any more significant than the opinion of any other person.

This is the problem that is really being debated here.
We repeatedly see high profile scientists like Novella and Dawkins making statements that cannot be supported by the science that they embrace, but still expecting to be taken seriously just because "they are scientists".

This is a fundamental issue-- not everything that a "professional scientist" says can be regarded as scientifically valid.

They argue from the authority of their position as scientists, but intrude into areas beyond the capacity of their methods.

As a rule though, few people notice the sleight of hand involved.

SB_UK
07-21-14, 04:25 AM
So - all that I'd suggest is that we need to insulate an ADDer from having to engage in behaviours which are not motivational/rewarding (because having to engage in such behaviours breaks the ADDer by forcing addictive behaviour ie stimulant/narcotic usage/activation and addiction accordingly)
- and see what the ADDer then does ie what is 'naturally' rewarding/motivational to the ADDer.

This'd be akin to giving the rats in rat park a choice of 2 environments (ie doors into each) and seeing which the rats chose (not an aspect of the experiment I think).

-*-

Now there're many problems with defining an experimental scheme to test the above ie the problems far transcend the practical difficulties of insulatiing an individual within a clean monastery type environment - because even there - the creeping menace of people remains - see (eg) the Nazi invasion of Mount Athos

- however jumping into mind - we arrive at an even deeper worry - and that is - once insulated and observed - how can one tell true motivation ?
It's possible for eg someone in medical research to appear to be motivated/rewarded by the right (species betterment) things ... ... but how do you actually know whether they're lying ?

A core problem for experimental science - especially since the individual may not be lying and may just be deluded ie believing something which it is nonsense to believe ... ... very rapidly the study of the mind travels into very difficult territory for science - and what we're left with is simply consistency.

How consistent are the individual's behaviours with their stated interests ?

So - we jump into the area of cognitive dissonance and double think
- and see that there's a mind which has a structure and which can truly believe in globally illogical ideas - and that the only possible way to get to the truth (scientific model) is to test consistency on all levels.

-*-

In simple english.

No reward in this world - ADDers take stimulant + narcotic to comply.
Reward (personal in social context) - no need to take drugs.

The existence of money is the confounder - and drives people towards behaviours which are not consistent with species wellbeing or in other words - moral.

SB_UK
07-21-14, 04:33 AM
If it is "not falsifiable" then all that means is that the scientists who are attempting to falsify the proposition simply do not understand the initial proposition in sufficient detail to break it down into subunits that can be tested.


And this is a very important part also.

In a connected model of reality (the basic idea of the butterfly effect)
- there is a way - though it's going to involve incredible data accumulation to associate the butterfly with some larger event
- possible maybe ?
But the larger question is that all forms of empirical studies will be approximations in a physical reality which is connected.

The statistical significance isn't real - it's simply a measure of an experiment performed under simplifying assumptions.

So - it's silly to say that the expt shows that there's a 1 in 100 chance that this event was a fluke - you've plenty of hidden assumptions (hidden conditional on world view) and also statistical test vagaries (the statistical test is built on distributions which won't be met in reality) ---
which confound interpretation.

SB_UK
07-21-14, 04:43 AM
I think the idea 'd be that empirical science is a heuristic.

That's not to say it's not useful - just that it's not the great arbiter of objectivity that people hope it to be.

Personally I think it's great for answering questions like how much food to eat, what kinda' food, how much and what kinda' exercise etc etc

But it's terrible (the experimental method) at eg defining an individual's motivation.

Is an individual's motivation anti-social [immoral] ?
Is an individual's motivation social [moral] ?
Does the individual believe their motivation is social [moral] ?
Does the individual believe their motivation is anti-social [immoral] ?
Is an individual's motivation anti-social [immoral] despite believing that their motivation is social [moral] ?

That last question is the one I need answering - because 'the road to Hades is paved with good intentions' - we're more at risk of species extinction through failure to realise our own weakness.

And off course - this basic idea forms the basis to a very famous trilogy which was the basis to last night's movie - the Book of Eli.
You go Denzel !

SB_UK
07-21-14, 04:52 AM
This is the problem that is really being debated here.
We repeatedly see high profile scientists like Novella and Dawkins making statements that cannot be supported by the science that they embrace, but still expecting to be taken seriously just because "they are scientists".



Gary Oldman (in that movie) simply wanted the book (as a reference to authority) to abuse its power.

If people could only see that the purpose of everything human beings do (including science!) is to make life better ... ... then we'd be there.
It sounds like such a silly thing to have to repeat - that if it makes life more difficult - then it's not science [impossible to separate true science from morality]
- but as we know most science is geared towards one nation beating another at either physical warfare or economic warfare
- neither of which are moral - are consistent with all of species wellbeing.

Drop a nuclear bomb on Wales and England will scarred ... ... connected thinking is essential in {science,mind, morality} - and it's interesting that all of that also forms the basis to that movie - Book of Eli.

World war ravages planet rescued through global consistency spread through a synthesis of education.

Fuzzy12
07-21-14, 06:34 AM
It's true that science can't prove everything (especially not at this very moment) and I wouldn't say that just because something cannot be scientifically proven (e.g. the existence of "god" or alien tea pots), it categorically means that it doesn't exist. It might exist. But without proof, why am I expected to be believe in it? If it can't be proven using scientific methods, then convince me using whatever method you prefer. Just saying that any topic that is out of the realm of science should just be blindly adopted (or funded) isn't a feasible alternative.

daveddd
07-21-14, 06:54 AM
It's true that science can't prove everything (especially not at this very moment) and I wouldn't say that just because something cannot be scientifically proven (e.g. the existence of "god" or alien tea pots), it categorically means that it doesn't exist. It might exist. But without proof, why am I expected to be believe in it? If it can't be proven using scientific methods, then convince me using whatever method you prefer. Just saying that any topic that is out of the realm of science should just be blindly adopted (or funded) isn't a feasible alternative.

show me the physical proof of mental illness , or i won't believe in it

SB_UK
07-21-14, 07:05 AM
Science (as we know it) generally has a goal.

Just check to see how well science is achieving the goal through asking an individual with no vested interest to assess it.

I don't see any acceptance of ADHD in supposedly intelligent country health systems (eg UK) - where ADHD is still a disease of irritating boys who're disruptive at school.

What does an ADDer / parent of ADDer want ?
To not fall victim to stimulant and opiate abuse.

How can we do that ?
Global societal change which permits the personal reward system and not the selfish (materialist) reward system to dictate behaviour
- ADDer gets quality reward doesn't take dopamine, doesn't require stress relief (opium).

Game over.

All of the above can be divined by simply studying human minds in context of human society.
We don't need to study human genes in context of human neurones.

Of course - experiments are easier to do on genes and neurones than they are on people and societies
- but the core nature of evolution to complexity is that as 'things' evolve - you need to look at the highest emergent property first and foremost before others in order to work out what's wrong (if something's wrong) with the thing.

Why ?
Because evolution doesn't build higher levels on unsound foundations ie previous abstraction layers have to be completed before new ones can be placed in position.

Meaning ?
That the human desire for clean experimentation (requiring simpler systems) ie physicss trumps sociology isn't useful in the case of common mental disorders -
or to make the point more clearly -

who'd consider looking at an individual's atoms to cure a mental condition ?

Looking at an individual's genes to help the individual is just as ridiculous a notion ?

The solution (prevention) to a problem which is characterized by ADDers not getting any reward in current society and so downing reward in a bottle (and the meds do work!) is simply to try and work out what it is that the ADDer finds rewarding.

Now - we've thousands of ADDers here - what do people here find rewarding ?

I'd suggest that the answer to this question 'd be things like stuff which has a point to it, getting better at something worth getting better at, forming functional social communities etc etc etc

- and therein lies the answer.

ADDers + dexedrine + opium in vicious societal infrastructure.
ADDers happy in social infrastructure.

Will there still be science ? technology ? sport ? etc etc in ADDer society.
Of course.

So what's the key difference ?
An individual's motivation.

Currently aligned to 'what's in it for me?' - it becomes 'what's in it for me and everybody else ? with a tendency towards what's in it for everbody else ?'
Why ?
Because if you work for 9.99 billion people and 9.99 billion people work for you
- then you can bet that your 1 existence is 9.99 billion times better than if you're (and this is our dumbo world) - working towards beating all-comers.

SB_UK
07-21-14, 07:27 AM
show me the physical proof of mental illness , or i won't believe in it

Exactly - find the physical damage in a software package where 1 crucial line has been deleted.

You can't do it.

You need appropriate tools (software level) and not hardware scanning devices to correct the problem.

The mind builds through education which is understood, social interaction, having fun, re-inforcing ideas, building on what's known... ... {we all know all of this}

- the crucial point though is that the individual is born into a mind which is a work in progress - the individual has to start with nothing and end up with a mind (an understanding of reality which is consistent)

- where consistent means, in addition to just the material world (how physics joins to chemistry), the informational world (how maths joins to computing) and the pre-Big Bang 'world' (how fundamental substrate joins to an evolutionary progression/informational complexity)
... ... as well as consistent with species well-being (how psychology joins with sociology)
ie pan-consistent on every level.

It need be noted though that pan-consistency is within the model (mind) and so what we're looking at in this pan-consistent model - is a psychological construct or structure
- which through completion opens the door to a place we're all keen to arrive at ie happiness without conditionality.

All of this nonsense about the experiment is a little like spending time over which of the Ministry of Silly Walks will get us from here to the kitchen.
So obviously useful is the scientific experiment but only a a tool for the human mind (the collective human mind) ie a model of understanding of human context.

SB_UK
07-21-14, 07:31 AM
In simple language

When you*'re consistent** you're free***.

* - YOUR MIND
** - A MODEL OF REALITY ALSO CONSISTENT WITH SPECIES WELLBEING
*** - LOSE ADDICTIVE PROPENSITY (IE THE NEED FOR SPEED)

Fuzzy12
07-21-14, 08:12 AM
show me the physical proof of mental illness , or i won't believe in it

The scientific method doesn't always require physical proof and science doesn't claim that all concepts that are scientifically accepted are 100% understood. Depression, for example, I think, is still one of the least understood mental health disorders but even though the physical basis of depression is not understood yet entirely, the existence of depression can be proven.

This is just my theory and my understanding of science but in an extremely simplified way I tend to think of science in the form of equations. Take any concept, define its parameters (e.g. DSM criteria in the case of mental health disorders) and then verify if a person fits those parameters. If they do then the concept applies to them.

I think, and again, this is just my opinion, that science in general, isn't as narrowly defined as you seem to view it. Psychology, for instance, is a discipline of science though it doesn't concern itself with exclusively physical, physiological, chemical and similar concepts.

daveddd
07-21-14, 08:31 AM
The scientific method doesn't always require physical proof and science doesn't claim that all concepts that are scientifically accepted are 100% understood. Depression, for example, I think, is still one of the least understood mental health disorders but even though the physical basis of depression is not understood yet entirely, the existence of depression can be proven.

This is just my theory and my understanding of science but in an extremely simplified way I tend to think of science in the form of equations. Take any concept, define its parameters (e.g. DSM criteria in the case of mental health disorders) and then verify if a person fits those parameters. If they do then the concept applies to them.

I think, and again, this is just my opinion, that science in general, isn't as narrowly defined as you seem to view it. Psychology, for instance, is a discipline of science though it doesn't concern itself with exclusively physical, physiological, chemical and similar concepts.

Ok. I get it

Depression though. I guess it depends on who you ask on how poorly understood it is

Especially when concerned with a physical cause

Fuzzy12
07-21-14, 09:07 AM
Science (as we know it) generally has a goal.

Just check to see how well science is achieving the goal through asking an individual with no vested interest to assess it.

I sometimes get asked to review potential journal publications and when I do I assess them purely based on the reasoning they present. The paper proposes a concept and I see if the reasoning presented BY THE AUTHORS of the paper to explain the concept is logical within the limitations stated BY THE AUTHORS. I don't get paid for it in any way, the outcome (i.e. acceptance or rejection of the paper for publication) doesn't affect me in any way and I don't have any other vested interests either. If I'm completely unbiased I don't know. Probably not but if there is a bias it arises from my level of knowledge and not from any desire for personal gain.

I don't see any acceptance of ADHD in supposedly intelligent country health systems (eg UK) - where ADHD is still a disease of irritating boys who're disruptive at school.

The rejection of ADHD or the idea that only irritating, disruptive little boys can have it is unscientific, not scientific. It's not the scientific community in the UK that rejects ADHD but under educated clinicians. If health care providers kept up with the latest scientific developments and didn't let their personal bias interfere ADHD would be more accepted in the UK as well.

What does an ADDer / parent of ADDer want ?
To not fall victim to stimulant and opiate abuse.

How can we do that ?
Global societal change which permits the personal reward system and not the selfish (materialist) reward system to dictate behaviour
- ADDer gets quality reward doesn't take dopamine, doesn't require stress relief (opium).

Game over.

This ADHDer needs constant, exciting change ON MY TERMS. The society that you have so often proposed would not be rewarding for me and I would struggle as much as I struggle in our current society if not more.

The problem with ADHDers is not that our reward system is driven by different or unselfish or non-materialistic rewards but that our reward system is impaired. The exact type of reward has very little to do with it, I suspect

All of the above can be divined by simply studying human minds in context of human society.

We don't need to study human genes in context of human neurones.

There are accepted and established disciplines of science that study human minds in context of human society rather than human genes and there are other disciplines that study genetics and then there are scientists that try to combine the findings of both fields if possible.

I've got nothing against the numerous disciplines that don't study genetics and I don't understand why you have a problem with anyone studying or researching genetics. Why do you want to limit what other people research? Personally, I believe that genetics is very important and beneficial but even if it wasn't what are the disadvantages? And without understanding genetics how would you know that it's not required, disadvantageous or harmful?

Of course - experiments are easier to do on genes and neurones than they are on people and societies

Why?

- but the core nature of evolution to complexity is that as 'things' evolve - you need to look at the highest emergent property first and foremost before others in order to work out what's wrong (if something's wrong) with the thing.

Why? A couple of years ago, a friend of mine had spinal tuberculosis. Her main symptom was severe back pain and for a very long the only treatment she was given was physiotherapy. It was only when the doctors dug deeper and carried out some tests that she was finally diagnosed with TB. Similarly, long before my dad had a heart attack, he presented with severe pain in his left arm. His GP never suspected (or bothered to test for) a cardiovascular problem and just kept prescribing my dad pain killers..till he finally had a heart attack.

If you don't understand anything about a particular concept, topic, object then looking at the highest, emergent property can be extremely misleading.

1. Why ?
Because evolution doesn't build higher levels on unsound foundations ie previous abstraction layers have to be completed before new ones can be placed in position.

Huh?

2. Meaning ?
That the human desire for clean experimentation (requiring simpler systems) ie physicss trumps sociology isn't useful in the case of common mental disorders -

I don't understand point 1. but I suspect (and I could be wrong) that the meaning (I.e. point 2) you are inferring from point 1 doesn't follow from point 1.

Physics does trump sociology when you are trying to understand physics based processes. When you are looking at common mental disorders, personally, I'd first look to psychiatry and psychology rather than sociology but even if you don't, exclusively looking at sociology and completely ignoring physics (or biology in this case) or psychology doesn't make sense when you are looking at physical, biological entities.


or to make the point more clearly -

who'd consider looking at an individual's atoms to cure a mental condition ?

Looking at an individual's genes to help the individual is just as ridiculous a notion ?

It might not be complete and it's about as ridiculous as exclusively looking at sociology to cure a mental condition.


The solution (prevention) to a problem which is characterized by ADDers not getting any reward in current society and so downing reward in a bottle (and the meds do work!) is simply to try and work out what it is that the ADDer finds rewarding.

Now - we've thousands of ADDers here - what do people here find rewarding ?

I'd suggest that the answer to this question 'd be things like stuff which has a point to it, getting better at something worth getting better at, forming functional social communities etc etc etc

Not in my case. Maybe yours but not mine. Personally, what I find rewarding is playing "word scramble 2" for hours. I don't think I should find it rewarding but I do and magically my ADHD vanishes or at least doesn't impair my ability to play word scramble 2. I highly doubt though that it is of a lot of benefit to me or society at large.

Have you conducted a survey or a poll, at least here on ADDF to find out what people here find rewarding? Do the majority of posts (including all members, not just your posts) that talk about rewards mention predominantly "getting better at something worth getting better at or forming functional social communities"?

- and therein lies the answer.

Is your answer based on ADHDers in general or just you?


So what's the key difference ?
An individual's motivation.

Currently aligned to 'what's in it for me?' - it becomes 'what's in it for me and everybody else ? with a tendency towards what's in it for everbody else ?'
Why ?
Because if you work for 9.99 billion people and 9.99 billion people work for you
- then you can bet that your 1 existence is 9.99 billion times better than if you're (and this is our dumbo world) - working towards beating all-comers.

I think, you have a highly idealised view of the general ADHDer. Maybe you are like that but are you sure that all ADHDers are? I know that I am not. Maybe I am the exception but do you know that I am?

daveddd
07-21-14, 11:09 AM
I sometimes get asked to review potential journal publications and when I do I assess them purely based on the reasoning they present. The paper proposes a concept and I see if the reasoning presented BY THE AUTHORS of the paper to explain the concept is logical within the limitations stated BY THE AUTHORS. I don't get paid for it in any way, the outcome (i.e. acceptance or rejection of the paper for publication) doesn't affect me in any way and I don't have any other vested interests either. If I'm completely unbiased I don't know. Probably not but if there is a bias it arises from my level of knowledge and not from any desire for personal gain.



The rejection of ADHD or the idea that only irritating, disruptive little boys can have it is unscientific, not scientific. It's not the scientific community in the UK that rejects ADHD but under educated clinicians. If health care providers kept up with the latest scientific developments and didn't let their personal bias interfere ADHD would be more accepted in the UK as well.



This ADHDer needs constant, exciting change ON MY TERMS. The society that you have so often proposed would not be rewarding for me and I would struggle as much as I struggle in our current society if not more.

The problem with ADHDers is not that our reward system is driven by different or unselfish or non-materialistic rewards but that our reward system is impaired. The exact type of reward has very little to do with it, I suspect



There are accepted and established disciplines of science that study human minds in context of human society rather than human genes and there are other disciplines that study genetics and then there are scientists that try to combine the findings of both fields if possible.

I've got nothing against the numerous disciplines that don't study genetics and I don't understand why you have a problem with anyone studying or researching genetics. Why do you want to limit what other people research? Personally, I believe that genetics is very important and beneficial but even if it wasn't what are the disadvantages? And without understanding genetics how would you know that it's not required, disadvantageous or harmful?



Why?



Why? A couple of years ago, a friend of mine had spinal tuberculosis. Her main symptom was severe back pain and for a very long the only treatment she was given was physiotherapy. It was only when the doctors dug deeper and carried out some tests that she was finally diagnosed with TB. Similarly, long before my dad had a heart attack, he presented with severe pain in his left arm. His GP never suspected (or bothered to test for) a cardiovascular problem and just kept prescribing my dad pain killers..till he finally had a heart attack.

If you don't understand anything about a particular concept, topic, object then looking at the highest, emergent property can be extremely misleading.



Huh?



I don't understand point 1. but I suspect (and I could be wrong) that the meaning (I.e. point 2) you are inferring from point 1 doesn't follow from point 1.

Physics does trump sociology when you are trying to understand physics based processes. When you are looking at common mental disorders, personally, I'd first look to psychiatry and psychology rather than sociology but even if you don't, exclusively looking at sociology and completely ignoring physics (or biology in this case) or psychology doesn't make sense when you are looking at physical, biological entities.




It might not be complete and it's about as ridiculous as exclusively looking at sociology to cure a mental condition.




Not in my case. Maybe yours but not mine. Personally, what I find rewarding is playing "word scramble 2" for hours. I don't think I should find it rewarding but I do and magically my ADHD vanishes or at least doesn't impair my ability to play word scramble 2. I highly doubt though that it is of a lot of benefit to me or society at large.

Have you conducted a survey or a poll, at least here on ADDF to find out what people here find rewarding? Do the majority of posts (including all members, not just your posts) that talk about rewards mention predominantly "getting better at something worth getting better at or forming functional social communities"?



Is your answer based on ADHDers in general or just you?




I think, you have a highly idealised view of the general ADHDer. Maybe you are like that but are you sure that all ADHDers are? I know that I am not. Maybe I am the exception but do you know that I am?

has it been proven our reward system is bad?

or is that a theory, your stating it as fact

Amtram
07-21-14, 12:29 PM
That's an ad hominem argument. It's usually used to debunk something but it can also be used to prove it.

He's a scientist, therefore his arguments are valid.

That's not a valid argument from either of you. I would like more of a scientific discussion. I would think an established scientist would have more to add to such a discussion, .. rather than be exempted from it. If he is an established scientist, I would like to hear arguments closer to the types he used to get to that point in his life.

This is why we have scientific consensus. n.b., this phrase does not mean argument from popularity - a lot of people think that scientists get together and take a vote. It's a bit like that, but it consists of experts in a field examining the existing data and coming to an agreement that the bulk of the evidence favors a particular hypothesis or approach. It has nothing to do with how they feel about the individual researchers involved.

There are numerous examples of people who started off as scientists or doctors or nurses who, for one reason or another, embrace ideas that are questionable, unproven, or disproven. This is why it's important to look at the consensus data rather than taking a single expert at his/her word.

In fact, the first thing I do when I encounter new scientific information is to backtrack to the source, then search for scientific opinions. The original research is important, because the press releases and articles about it often leave out or distort important information. The scientific opinions are important because they let you know what the rest of the scientific community thinks about the robustness of the data.

This applies both to ideas I like and ones I don't. I've had to change my mind about many, many things over the years. Sometimes I don't have a complete understanding of something, and sometimes I've been outright wrong, and the only way I can correct that is by looking at multiple sources rather than relying on a single person, regardless of the letters after his name.

Fuzzy12
07-21-14, 12:37 PM
has it been proven our reward system is bad?

or is that a theory, your stating it as fact

Good question!! It's my theory based on what I believe I have read. I'll have to dig out my sources to confirm it for both you and me. So till I cite some verifiable sources feel free to consider it as conjecture. :)

Amtram
07-21-14, 12:49 PM
If it is "not falsifiable" then all that means is that the scientists who are attempting to falsify the proposition simply do not understand the initial proposition in sufficient detail to break it down into subunits that can be tested.

No. If it's not falsifiable, then that means that the hypothesis was not formulated correctly. This is part of the scientific method.

So- if "it" is not falsifiable, "it" remains a live possibility until the scientists who would try to falsify it mature a little in their own understanding of the question being posited.

It is not the thing being studied that is falsifiable; it is the hypothesis or theory that is falsifiable.

Dizfriz has commented, rightly, that science can prove nothing.
It can only disprove.

The reason for this is that science is open to the idea of new information being superior to old information. Facts are only pieces of information that are used to build Theories or disprove unlikely mechanisms. There are things that are so incredibly unlikely to be disproven that we might as well consider them factual mechanisms, but science does not permit a full closing of the books, and that is why they do not present "PROOF."

If science cannot disprove a theorem, then scientists have no right to comment upon that theorem and expect that their status as scientists makes their opinion on the matter in question any more significant than the opinion of any other person.

This makes no sense at all to me. Scientists comment on Theories all the time, and often modifications or additions to those theories come from the constant attempts to test things against those Theories. We would not have our current investigations into Physics if Newton had had the final word and other Physicists hadn't kept working on testing his Theories.

This is the problem that is really being debated here.
We repeatedly see high profile scientists like Novella and Dawkins making statements that cannot be supported by the science that they embrace, but still expecting to be taken seriously just because "they are scientists".

And yet, this is a well-worn technique of pseudoscientists. Joe Mercola, for example, trades heavily on that "Dr." in front of his name, even though almost everything he says is unreliable.

This is a fundamental issue-- not everything that a "professional scientist" says can be regarded as scientifically valid.

Yes, like Dr. Bruce Lipton. That's why we look at the evidence.

They argue from the authority of their position as scientists, but intrude into areas beyond the capacity of their methods.

Like Bernardo Kastrup.

As a rule though, few people notice the sleight of hand involved.

Which is why pseudoscience is enjoying such a lucrative run.

Amtram
07-21-14, 12:52 PM
show me the physical proof of mental illness , or i won't believe in it

Look at someone with schizophrenia or autism or epilepsy. The symptoms are physical evidence of the existence of the conditions. What we are still working on is merely physical evidence of the origin of the symptoms. Not the same thing.

daveddd
07-21-14, 01:35 PM
No I'm sure the conditions exist. I meant show the proven biological flaws that cause them

Amtram
07-21-14, 02:25 PM
That's what they're working on. However, like cancer, they are complex conditions that will have complex causes - so whenever anyone says they can cure them with a simple treatment (especially one that treats other unrelated conditions with equal simplicity) then you know that they have not used science or reason to come to those conclusions.

Flory
07-21-14, 02:57 PM
wasn't someone just saying the other day that genetic research was useless to somebody with adhd and that more research needs to be done on things that will actually help them ?

now they are saying prove the biological reasons for it/basically the genetic research etc etc :confused:

daveddd
07-21-14, 03:13 PM
Genetic contribution doesn't have to mean biological flaw

Amtram
07-21-14, 04:05 PM
Genetic research isn't useless, we're just not going to find "a gene for ADHD." As long as people think that's the ultimate goal, they're going to be sorely disappointed. Geneticists are aware that ADHD and many other conditions are polygenic, and that the likelihood is a gene that controls for a normal behavior or behavioral predisposition is going to be mutated somehow or expressed to a maladaptive level. It's not like they're going to be able to inject stem cells into the brain and fix everything. If the thing being studied is reduced to the molecular level, most of the findings are going to be very specific and limited.

It's usually the pseudoscientists who have unrealistic expectations of genetic research. Geneticists know they're looking for very small things that may not have any immediate practical application - we're nowhere near being able to genetically engineer human beings without disastrous complications.

Flory
07-21-14, 04:33 PM
i wasn't saying it was useless personally :)

daveddd
07-21-14, 06:40 PM
its not useless in general, several genotypes are about as "proven" as proven gets, for leading to similar, even strikingly similar psychiatric phenotypes

it maybe useless to an adult with adhd

Amtram
07-21-14, 09:05 PM
It might be useful to an adult with ADHD if it means gene-targeted medications. We already know that the presence of specific genes/alleles can alter a person's response to medication, making the person more or less responsive or likely to experience negative effects (like genetic unresponsiveness to morphine or processing speed that's affected by liver enzymes.) Gene-targeted therapies would allow medications with a much more specific range of effect, and genome testing would allow the right medication to be prescribed from the start, rather than through trial and error.