Mod+ 269. DR. MICHAEL SHERMER, SKEPTICAL SCIENCE REPORTING

In the past, Nobelists like Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, Charles Richet, John William Strutt, and J. J. Thompson and others of the best scientsts such as Sir William Crookes, Sir Robert Boyle, and Louis Pasteur studied psychical phenomenon or expressed "heretical beliefs" because funding for research was handled differently than it is today.
Ugh.
... and Sir Isaac Newton dedicated more of his time to the study of religion and alchemy than he did to mathematics and natural philosophy.
No one is saying they can't do the research. YOU can do the research, if you want to. The problem is that the research that has been done is all pointing one way -> no extra sensory perception, astrology debunked, homeopathy debunked, religion debunked, no 'extra you' in your head that lives after your body stops working, no telekinesis. None, nada, nyet, niks, bupkiss.

If you could prove telekinesis. Prove it. You would become the next Pasteur, you would be mentioned in the same breath as Einstein.
The reason credible scientists stopped looking in these areas is because they couldn't find anything, not because there was no money. Could you prove the existence of a soul? The Catholic church would move a billion dollars into your bank account tomorrow!
The only "scientists" (I used quotes, because I don't think they are acting honestly) in this space are charlatans like Deepak Chopra, using pseudo-scientific double talk to deceive the unwary and line their own pockets.
 
I tend to think that when people do not feel threatened, are not hungry and have an education not based on bronze-age religions, they are kinder, less selfish, and less violent.
But that's the optimist in me.


Science shows that racial prejudices are just nonsense, at a genetic level, we are all very similar to each other. I assert that the rising tide of morality and moral acuity (being able to see what is moral because you are less dumb) did have something to do with the rise of education and scientific progress.


Nope. If that was true, the God crowd would still have a much stronger hold on us. Many faith traditions make claims about reality that science has shown to be false. There are still people who say that reality is wrong because it does not conform to what their religion says, but the cognitive dissonance for these people is incredible. To try to hold two mutually exclusive concepts in your head (reality v. 'god') must be exhausting and probably manifests itself in other anti-social behaviors.

You're talking about not just science but secular philosophy, capitalism, the welfare state, technological progress, liberal democracy, and all sorts of other things.

I do actually agree that secular welfare state systems like Sweden and Denmark are the best, i.e. the most moral, systems out there.

The funny thing is that a libertarian like Shermer can't admit this despite all the evidence, because he's ideologically committed to the idea that free markets and low taxes are always best.

I'm skeptical about the idea that scientific progress has led to moral progress. I think it has much more to do with secular philosophy and social and political struggle.

But maybe I'm just splitting hairs here. It could be that whenever Shermer uses the word 'science' he really means 'science, democracy, secular philosophy, capitalism, the welfare state, and social and political struggle'.

Let's just not give all the credit to science. That's all I'm saying.
 
Well, there's the Old Testament, and the New Testament, lumped together from the earliest days of Christianity. Our present-day morality isn't primarily from the Old Testament. To be fair, the New Testament speaks much more closely to modern notions of morality. Some religious people who base their morality on the NT won't be going far wrong: the NT, particularly the four Gospels, presented a system of morals that was well ahead of its time.

I think this OT/NT stuff is a modern day invention... one more subtle way we cling to this religious craziness:

We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God’s Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And his testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

http://www.bethinking.org/bible/q-how-did-jesus-view-the-old-testament

 
It's interesting how western culture seems to be locked into a Christian-style mythology structure. Even western atheists hold to the same style to a large extent.

The old mythology had God/Jesus (the source of truth and all that is good) in an epic battle with Satan (the source of evil and ignorance, the great deceiver). The True Believers of Christianity thought the nonbelievers had been deceived by Satan and must be enlightened and taught the way of truth. They treat their interpretation of religious texts as absolute truth, and equate their beliefs with the word "reality". If something is observed that appears to contradict the existing teachings, it is hidden or ignored for as long as possible - people who bring attention to it are treated as crazy.

Now we have the most revered science (the source of truth and all that is good) in an epic battle with religion (the source of evil and ignorance, the great deceiver). The True Believers of materialism think the nonbelievers have been deceived by religion and must be enlightened and taught the way of truth. They treat their interpretation of scientific experiments as absolute truth, and equate their beliefs with the word "reality". If something is observed that appears to contradict existing teachings, it is hidden or ignored for as long as possible - people who bring attention to it are treated as crazy.

There are certainly differences, but I see far more similarities. Personally, I would like to see us move past this mythological structure. I keep coming back to Skeptiko because this is where I see a lot of people rejecting the false dichotomy of "science vs religion". Once we (as a society) get past that, maybe something beautiful can emerge. Until then, I'll just sit here in my bubble of chaotic uncertainty :)
 
This is the slight of hand at the heart of the materialist paradigm: Their press kit is always going on about how the only thing that matters to them is concrete fact - and that this is what sets them apart from those other people who resort to self-rationalizing metaphysics that are never definitively articulated or understood. When materialists resort to the same sort of metaphysics to fill in the gaps in their worldview, they just assert that 'that's not what we meant'. When pushed to explain, they inevitably default to "we haven't figured that out yet...but we know we will one day". So much for basing everything on concrete fact. It is a system that has a constant moving of the goalposts built into it so it can never be wrong.

nice... thx :)
 
I think the trick for intellectuals today - if you dare call yourself an intellectual - is to attempt to see beyond the blinders that are forced upon you by the current orthodoxy of your time. The current orthodoxy of our time - is clearly this reductionistic materialistic philosophy that has commandeered "Science" - as if the two were one and the same. What perhaps is even more astonishing with today's orthodoxy of materialism, is some of the best scientists of the 20th century (Wheeler, Pauli, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Von Neumann) reached a conclusion about reality that was far from "materialistic".

I think this has led to the marginalization of science... more and more people think science is a bad joke.
 
There are certainly differences, but I see far more similarities. Personally, I would like to see us move past this mythological structure. I keep coming back to Skeptiko because this is where I see a lot of people rejecting the false dichotomy of "science vs religion". Once we (as a society) get past that, maybe something beautiful can emerge. Until then, I'll just sit here in my bubble of chaotic uncertainty :)
I agree strongly with the corresponding attitudes of "true belief" between fundamentalism and fundamaterialism.

Maybe you can be encouraged --- that we can define and measure uncertainty (information theory) and have a evolving set of principles (nonlinear dynamics) that can help us understand how organization emerges from chaos.
 
I concede that point, well stated.

I don't think we can 'science' our way out of all problems, my rhetoric in this forum has been tilted in that direction as a reaction to the discussion.
Then you need to be willing to concede that some very valid scientific methodologies are being applied to consciousness studies... and there is scientific evidence pointing at the possibility that mind does not necessarily = brain.
 
When pushed to explain, they inevitably default to "we haven't figured that out yet...but we know we will one day". So much for basing everything on concrete fact. It is a system that has a constant moving of the goalposts built into it so it can never be wrong.
I think the answer, "I don't know" is a valid position to take. It is also valid and appropriate for me to question whether or not someone else's answer is based on evidence or faith (pretending to know things you do not know).
Seeing this as some sort of "slight of hand" and equates with 'moving the goal posts' is a bit disingenuous.

Then he makes this extraordinary claim for so called "moral emotions" for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever and comes across as nothing but an attempt to use mythological narrative to account for morality in terms of a materialist belief system.
... he makes this extraordinary claim for so called "moral emotions" for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever ...
He makes a claim for 'moral progress', not 'moral emotions'. Moral progress is the -- “improvement in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings”. His argument is that the definition of sentient beings is broadening, based on our understanding of biology, chemistry and, yes, philosophy.
So, I'll throw the 'moral emotion' argumentation into the 'straw man' pile.

... comes across as nothing but an attempt to use mythological narrative to account for morality in terms of a materialist belief system ...
One more time.
There is no 'materialist belief system'.
I do not pray to Darwin or worship at the periodic table.
I do not burn candles and chant calculus equations.

And yet these are the same people who go on ad nauseam about "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" for everybody else.
The statement, "I am sitting in a chair" typed on a keyboard and appearing on a computer forum is probably true. Given your body of knowledge and your opinion of me, that probability might go up or down.
Let's say (for example) you have an 80% confidence that this statement is true.
If you are standing in the room where I am and can see me sitting in a chair, your confidence in that statement might go up.
But you know that I am a prankster and master illusionist, so that might make your confidence go down.
But you put the chair in the room and know that it isn't a 'trick' chair, so your confidence goes up.
Etc...
You evaluate claims made by others all the time. This was formalized by Bayes, but you have a mechanism for evaluating truth claims. It's part and parcel with having a brain that evolved on this planet in this gravity well.
If you a person makes a claim for which there is no, or very weak, evidence, my confidence goes down.
If I know facts that contradict their claim, it goes down further.
So saying that you have a ghost living in your head, or that sky daddy is watching my every move, it will take some pretty convincing, nay, extraordinary, evidence to make me confident that you are telling the truth.
See how that works?
 
Ugh.
YOU can do the research, if you want to. The problem is that the research that has been done is all pointing one way -> no extra sensory perception,
Richard, are your a researcher?

Science divides into at least two fundamental methodological activities. Research implies the work of designing experiments and measuring natural reality appropriately - to gain well-formed data.

The another primary activity is analyzing the data, via quasi-empirical means such; as math and logic based computation. Today, science is getting a bad rep because of stylized pundits who think they are qualified to analyze data with their feelings. Most of these pundits exhibit metaphysically limited viewpoints.

My guess is that you have never even looked at the data from research on the subject of non-physical communication.
 
My guess is that you have never even looked at the data from research on the subject of non-physical communication.
Then get to citing, because I have been reading a lot of articles and papers and I have not seen anything I would consider valid in this area. If you can demonstrate something, you should immediately apply to the James Randi educational foundation and get you that million bucks they are offering to anyone who can prove a claim like that.
Cash money, in your pocket.
 
Ha. I'm reminded of the fish who screams 'There is no such thing as water!'
And I am reminded of the time I didn't want to get out of the pool so kept diving under the water when my mom tried telling me that it was time to go home.
The problem is that you eventually need to come up for air.
Disagreement with my position is fine.
Calling me a liar is childish and churlish.
PS. Your pants are on fire.
 
Then get to citing,

I'd suggest reading Irreducible Mind, just for starters.

http://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068

BTW, the appeal to the MDC shows what a rookie you are. It isn't a scientific challenge. If anything, it spits in the face of good scientific protocols. A one-off demonstration isn't good science. It isn't proof of anything (proof only applies to math and alcohol). Could you demonstrate that aspirin helps to prevent heart attacks in such a way? Of course not. JREF is not a scientific organization. It's a fan club.

The Parapsychological Association is an example of a scientifically based organization. It is an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and endorses no ideologies or beliefs other than the value of rigorous scientific and scholarly inquiry. The PA also holds a yearly conference in which peer-reviewed scientific papers are presented. In contrast, TAM events appear to be places where well-known skeptics behave inappropriately.
 
Back
Top