Ben Stein shows he's no Michael Moore

[mattskramer]

Since no human has I think your question is pointless because all it can do is lead to fantastic speculation that comes to nothing in the context of the current discussions.

I think that you missed my point. People argue that everything seems to fit so perfectly for human life. If we were closer to the sun, we would burn up. If we were just a tiny bit closer, we would freeze to death. Our chemical makeup is just perfectly adequate. People conclude that biologically and atmospherically there is practically no way that life could have come about by accident or random chance. I disagree. Our universe, as far as we know, is without end. We have not traveled far enough in space ships to find a giant wall in space. We have not looked through space telescopes to find a “dead end” in space. People say that the chance that we came about by accident is 1 in several billion. Well, I speculate that we have billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of chances that we have not even seen yet.

 

[Uknow_me72]

I said before, all science is not false, to truely understand the universe and life we need to understand how the supernatural corresponds with the physical and what the relationships are.

Big Bang and Evolution are false theories is what I said each made to support each other and to take the human populace from God. Leaving the supernatural out of the context is completely make these to theories false and to having no true answer to them just an idea.

Discovering how the cell worked is one thing and really helped us improve our bodies and understand what is making us run. It also did another thing. It also showed how we can be altered and posined in to living shorter lifes. Dual Edge Sword. Genetics are being used against us, creating viruses, toxic food and what not is causing all the cancer and sickness that you have seen as of late.

So this universe is estimated to be here like 800,000,000,000 years or something like that (just a big number to make my point) and humans have been here for almost 6,000 years. Looks like a big void for a lot of things to happen, see how technology has gone in the little time that you have been alive, just imagine the big time difference.

There is life on other planets, this is for sure. There are other intellegent beings out there. Scary idea huh?

We will see them, we will see the change in the way the world is ran. We will be free from the dream we are all in. It is just a matter of time. This will take place in our life times. This is not a warning but a message. Call it what you want to the proof is soon to come.

 

[Shogun]

Listen, Frazzled...


You can say that we are "limiting" our scope of scientific knowledge by RESTRICTING SCIENCE to the physical realm all you want. CLEARLY, you have not read Bacon yet. The FACT remains that PHYSICAL SCIENCE allows no room for SUPERNATURAL events and other bullshit wishful thinking fabrications from the people that you are defending. If you can't figure out why SCIENCE concerns itself with the PHYSICAL, instead of the bullshit METAphysical, then so be it.


I mean, I don't have a degree from the vatican but at least I can fathom the significance of the word PHYSICAL in PHYSICAL SCIENCE.


(which, if you are keeping track, is WHY you can't provide a single experiment or provide the slightest bit of tangible evidence. METAPHYSICS =/ physical science.

 

[Diuretic]

The anger that is evinced by people in response to steadfast belief in God always surprises me. I don't get angry at people when they don't believe in God, but it's obvious those who don't believe in God are angered by the belief of others.

Which actually strengthens my faith, since it's all in the Bible.

I've never been angered by anyone's belief in God. I admit to getting pretty damn annoyed by propagandists that want to attack science for religious purposes though. Just like I get annoyed by people that want to mix religion and politics and advocate the creation of theocracies.

 

[Diuretic]

I think that you missed my point. People argue that everything seems to fit so perfectly for human life. If we were closer to the sun, we would burn up. If we were just a tiny bit closer, we would freeze to death. Our chemical makeup is just perfectly adequate. People conclude that biologically and atmospherically there is practically no way that life could have come about by accident or random chance. I disagree. Our universe, as far as we know, is without end. We have not traveled far enough in space ships to find a giant wall in space. We have not looked through space telescopes to find a “dead end” in space. People say that the chance that we came about by accident is 1 in several billion. Well, I speculate that we have billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of chances that we have not even seen yet.

You're right, I missed your point.

 

[frazzledgear]

Listen, Frazzled...


You can say that we are "limiting" our scope of scientific knowledge by RESTRICTING SCIENCE to the physical realm all you want. CLEARLY, you have not read Bacon yet. The FACT remains that PHYSICAL SCIENCE allows no room for SUPERNATURAL events and other bullshit wishful thinking fabrications from the people that you are defending. If you can't figure out why SCIENCE concerns itself with the PHYSICAL, instead of the bullshit METAphysical, then so be it.


I mean, I don't have a degree from the vatican but at least I can fathom the significance of the word PHYSICAL in PHYSICAL SCIENCE.


(which, if you are keeping track, is WHY you can't provide a single experiment or provide the slightest bit of tangible evidence. METAPHYSICS =/ physical science.

The slightest bit of INtangible evidence you mean? You don't need an experiment to know intangibles exist. Your feelings are just one example of an intangible. Anger, love, happiness, contentment -all exist but without any physical location. So are they real? If so, just where are those located and how do we measure them? Or are they just the result of chemical reactions in your body? In fact, scientists have discovered the EMOTION comes first -then the chemical reaction in response to that emotion. For example, in the "flight-or-fight" reaction it is fear felt first, THEN the "flight-or-fight" reaction from the adrenaline rush as a result of the emotion of fear. And that makes total sense if you think about it. In order to feel fear, an organism must first be AWARE and conscious of danger (two more intangibles). Once it identifies a danger, THEN it experiences the emotion of fear -and THEN the body responds to that emotion with a chemical reaction that might assist the organism in somehow dealing with the situation at hand.

So do we really we understand the origins of emotion any better than they did 500 years ago? How about better than 1000 years ago? We actually know very little more in that area than they did centuries ago.

What we have discovered so far about emotions actually DEFIES the materialism paradigm which says that everything that exists can be reduced to a physical process. But in the case of emotion, it is an INTANGIBLE that exists first -and then the physical process of a chemical reaction follows.

The reality is after centuries, we are still struggling with some of the very same questions the "ancients" had -questions we, as a species, have always had. And Bacon -who wanted to restore the "wisdom" of the ancients - couldn't answer those either. He just tried to place limits on the questions we should pursue. Does that mean we just assume they cannot ever be answered just because the "acceptable" PERSPECTIVE in approaching such questions rules out the possibility of even attempting to answer them?

If you rule out even the POSSIBILITY that the answers involve more than you can hear, see, taste, smell and feel and can physically measure -then you have ARBITRARILY put limits on yourself and your ability to gain knowledge -and on the basis that whatever you cannot feel with your senses and physically measure, just isn't real. But you already know that just isn't true. Humans have been making that same mistake all along -and it wasn't until someone realized that MORE exists out there beyond our physical senses, which are quite limited and moreso than many other species - that we gained greater knowledge. If we limited ourselves to just our physical senses and ability to measure it and decide that anything that falls outside that range just doesn't exist -then discoveries we have already made and incorporated into our lives would be impossible.

So by WHAT possible logic can you claim that everything around us must somehow function in accordance with the limitations of OUR senses in some way or another - and set limits as to exactly where that ends? Even though you choose to limit yourself to that -by means of what "logic" can you claim that all scientists must also limit themselves the very same way?

I should think the answer would be obvious to you. We just don't know what we can discover by NOT limiting ourselves and by approaching a question from a totally new and different perspective -until we TRY. But to say we shouldn't even TRY by any other means but a materialism approach is simply repeating the errors of the past and just another version of believing that if we couldn't see it with the naked eye, then it just doesn't exist.

 

[Shogun]

Your FEELINGS are not tangible. PSYCHOLOGY, a SOFT science, deals with feelings. You want access to a HARD science. I don't care if you can't figure out the significant difference. You are no longer making arguements that are interesting enough to provoke much of a reply.

by the way, it really is hilarious how you latch onto one facet of psych as if it validates the medical model of the personality.


have fun trying to bend the most basic rule of SCIENCE around your dogma jonez.


and read some fucking Francis Bacon already.

 

[AllieBaba]

Psychology isn't science at all. Not even soft science.

 

[Shogun]

Psychology isn't science at all. Not even soft science.

you are a stupid motherfucker, baba. for real. I can name more psych experiments in half a second than you can whip out for your flailing christianity.


Hell, Pavlov did more for science than any collective apologetics theory has EVER done.

 

[AllieBaba]

Spastic. It's not a science.

 

[AllieBaba]

"It's very simple, really. If a theory doesn't make testable predictions, or if the tests are not practical, or if the tests cannot lead to a clear outcome that supports or falsifies the theory, the theory is not scientific. This may come as another surprise, but very little of the theoretical content of human psychology meets this scientific criterion. As to the clinical practice of psychology, even less meets any reasonable definition of “scientific.” "

...
"like religion, human psychology has a dark secret at its core – it contains within it a model for correct behavior, although that model is never directly acknowledged. Buried within psychology is a nebulous concept that, if it were to be addressed at all, would be called “normal behavior.” But do try to avoid inquiring directly into this normal behavior among psychologists – nothing is so certain to get you diagnosed as having an obsessive disorder."

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

 

[Shogun]

Spastic. It's not a science.

it really is stupid statements like that which make people believe you are stupid, baba. It is a science. It's a soft science. learn why.


and, again, i'll stack pavlov against ANYTHING you've got in your apologetics quiver.

 

[AllieBaba]

I do know about it, spaz. I've been neck deep in it for years.

"In the middle of this list of choices, somewhere between science and religion, we find psychology. In psychology, as shown in the earlier sections and because of a theory vacuum at the center of human psychology and a dearth of high-quality experimental evidence, there is frequently open disagreement between "authorities," to the degree that the defense and prosecution sides in a legal action can, and regularly do, hire two equally qualified, highly respected psychological experts, who will proceed to disagree about nearly everything, without jeopardizing their professional standing. This means "authority" in psychology comes down to which authority you consult, and that in turn means there is no authority in psychology. Therefore, very important, psychologists can only possess the authority granted them by individual clients for reasons of their own, just as with religion.

This idea that psychologists possess no authority is not only based in scientific reasoning, it is based in law as well. When 10-year-old Candace Newmaker was killed by her therapists in 1999, her mother was convicted of criminally negligent child abuse resulting in death. She was given a four-year sentence as a clear signal that parents are accountable for their own decisions and may not defer responsibility to psychologists and psychotherapists....

The present atmosphere among many psychologists and psychiatrists can only be described as panic. This panic is clearly shown in the rapid, seemingly purposeful destruction of the DSM, the field's “bible,” as a legitimate diagnostic tool (because if everything is a mental illness, then nothing is). This panic arises in part from a slow realization that many conditions formerly thought to be mental conditions amenable to psychological treatment, turn out to be organic conditions treatable with drugs (or, like homosexuality, turn out to be conditions not appropriate to any kind of treatment). Further, many traditional clinical practices have been shown to be ineffectual and/or indistinguishable from ordinary experience or nothing at all.

In the final analysis, the present state of psychology is the best answer to the original inquiry about whether it is scientific, because if human psychology were as grounded in science as many people believe, many of its historical and contemporary assertions would have been falsified by its own theoretical and clinical failures, and it would be either replaced by something more scientifically rigorous, or simply cast aside for now.

But this is all hypothetical, because psychology and psychiatry have never been based in science, and therefore are free of the constraints placed on scientific theories. This means these fields will prevail far beyond their last shred of credibility, just as religions do, and they will be propelled by the same energy source — belief. That pure, old-fashioned fervent variety of belief, unsullied by reason or evidence."

Screw pavlov. He proved that there's a physical reaction to knowing you're going to eat. Whoopie.

 

[Shogun]

so, who gives a fuck what a blog says again?



classical conditioning, baba. you use it every day when you spank your kid or tempt them with rewards. Psych 101. Put that on your bible and thump it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol. "Science is meant to be objective and unbiased. It should be free of values and discover the truths about what it is studying."
http://ezinearticles.com/?Psychology---A-Science-As-Well-As-an-Art&id=961082
Can't do it when you're studying people's FEELINGS.
"Kline in 1998 argued that the different approaches within the field of psychology should be seen as self-contained disciplines, as well as different facets of the same discipline. He argued that a field of study can only be legitimately considered a science if a majority of its workers subscribe to a common, global perspective or 'paradigm'. According to Kuhn, a philosopher of science, this means that psychology is 'pre-paradigmatic' - it lacks a paradigm, without which it is still in a state of 'pre-science'....

On the other hand, psychology can be viewed not as a science, as it does not aim at scientific principles to measure the whole world. In many areas of psychology there is no attempt to generalize from some human behavior to all human behavior. The social representation theory focuses on interactions, and the humanistic theory focuses on self-actualization and the individual's experiences and actions. Where there is focus on interactions between people, and on the individual's experiences, scientific methods are not useful. Non-scientific methods include case-studies and unstructured interviews. If a method in not scientific, it aims for good validity, in-depth material about someone or a small group, qualitative data and a richness of data that is not found by isolating variables, as in many psychological studies."

 

[Shogun]

EZINEARTICLES?

who the fuck cares what INTERNET "authors" have to say about psych?

this is another reason why your posts lack relevance: you have no idea what it means to cite a worthwhile source.


Now, run along before I have to drop the bomb on you and tell you how your participation in this forum is standard issue behaviourism 101.


again, and I really like this line, Put that on your bible and thump it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, that's right. And you are all about accuracy and "science".

Please.

 

[Shogun]

you are fucking right I am.


and I sure as hell would never even remotely consider posting a blog as a viable source.

 

[Uknow_me72]

I am confused... Isn't the data from a science experiment basically a BLOG made by the scientist based on their discoveries?

Check it out. Believe in yourself shogun. Stop riding others waves.
Original thoughts, be an independant thinker.

The brainwashing is so unbelievable that we forgot that we are primative and can make our own decisions that do not need to be based on anothers opinion or what the mainstream deems as fact.

Nothing against you shogun really except for my last statement. Nothing but love for ya buddy and you love to debate and get your voice heard but the government that needs to hear it won't.

 

[jillian]

I am confused... Isn't the data from a science experiment basically a BLOG made by the scientist based on their discoveries?

I think that one might well win this week's dumbest post award

btw the answer is "no"