Quite simply
because it is a load of bollocks.
If near-death experiences have any basis in anything other than brain trauma, it would mean that the nebulous concept of the 'soul' really does exist. That would render scientific understanding as we know it completely obsolete and wrong, so that should tell you immediately that it's not worth pursuing. Science has come far enough to know approximately what is worth researching and what isn't. It's no longer about picking your favourite fantasy and exploring it just for the sake of it.
I'm guessing from your aggressive and defensive response that you're a person of faith, and as such, you probably have no rational basis for your stance that it's worth researching because "we do not know".
Science is best served by research in areas likely to bear fruit.
This is not one of them.
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:31,
Share,
Reply)
"it would mean that the nebulous concept of the 'soul' really does exist. That would render scientific understanding as we know it completely obsolete and wrong"
But that is what science is all about! The best outcome of an experiment is one that disproves conventional wisdom.
I should point out that I am most definitely not a person of faith.
(
The Coast Of Yemen, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:34,
Share,
Reply)
the best outcome of an experiment is a sex-bot capable of doing your bidding indistinguishable from human. everyone knows this
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:42,
Share,
Reply)
Richard Feynman said this about scientific research
If science finds something out to be true, whether you like it or not, it's true.
(
Brandy_Bumwinkle, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:48,
Share,
Reply)
yep but how do you define 'truth'
isn't 'scientific probability' just another word for 'faith'
the fact that the outcome of a so called 'objective' experiment provided the recorded result based on a certain factor is in itself still based on probability
i'm also of a mind to believe there is no such thing as pure 'objectivity'
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:13, Share, Reply)
But if it is not proven, then it is not true.
Just because results from one experiment suggest a truth, doesn't make them necessarily true!
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:16,
Share,
Reply)
then it's not true but 'might be probable '
it's the black and white aspect I have a problem with - a result of the rise of the scientific dictatorship from the 16th century onwards (which had its roots ion occultism and kabbalistic traditions itself - John Dee, Eramus Darwin etc)
isn't it true that at the quantum level the way an experiement is observed affects the outcome?
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:19, Share, Reply)
yes
but that's because to observe something you have to have some kind of energy/matter bouncing off of it, which results in the tiny thing you're looking at changing direction/momentum. The uncertainly principle states you can either know the exact position or the exact momentum, but not both.
(
Brandy_Bumwinkle, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:26,
Share,
Reply)
I don't want to enter into a philosophical debate about true/false here
Some things are more worthy of investigation that others. It doesn't need to be a binary choice, there are levels of importance and worth in between. This experiment is extremely unlikely (to the point of being a foregone conclusion) to produce anything other than a resounding negative result.
So, the question is... what's the point in doing it at all?
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:21,
Share,
Reply)
The pyramids are pretty cool
what was the point in building those?
Why should I even bother going outside tomorrow? I'll probably just wind up at work anyway.
We should all be stationary foodtubes. What's the point in being anything else?
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:33,
Share,
Reply)
becasue it would be boring
but dont think that this particluer exsperiment is trying to solve the problem of bordom so i dont see how your point is valid
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:44, Share, Reply)
Bit of a straw man that
don't you think?
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:45,
Share,
Reply)
i suppose
but his asking the question why should he go outside, becuase its similair to the question why do the exsperiment. but i can quite easly answer the going outside question, where as the point of doing the exsperment is under debate.
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:51, Share, Reply)
Bit of a reductio ad absurdum n'est pas?
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:04,
Share,
Reply)
i dont think so
i just that his question about why to go outside wasnt compoarble to why do the exsperment.
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:12, Share, Reply)
Hey Goat
I'm more of an amateur physicist than anything else so truth in these terms is physical constants, light waves, sound waves etc, all measurable down to as good as your equipment is. I don't see probability as faith, quantum mechanics is all based on probability, which is measurable and extremely accurate, but is only as good as the ruler being used. What happens beyond the measure of the ruler though, is anyones guess :)
(
Brandy_Bumwinkle, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:23,
Share,
Reply)
3 points:
1) it would not render scientific understanding void, nor even atheism. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Some religious doctrines and some science are mutually exclusive.
2) Faith is believing something which is not yet proven so, yes, I guess I am. So are you. You have faith that there is no soul, for example.
3) 'Because it is a load of bollocks' is the same argument as 'because God says so' and is, frankly, not a valid scientific argument.
My assumption is that you are an anti-religious fundy and, as such, I shall not try and talk to you rationally.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:37,
Share,
Reply)
being anti relegion is just breing anti making shit up
the whole problem with relgion is that the relgious beilfs are carefully constructed so that they cant be proved or disproved. if you look at carl popper he wil say that you should hold a theory intill its disproven but if that theory can not be proved or disproved then its not a scintific theory. materlism is the best theory we have at the moment. is it worth testing that theory? of course, but faith and all that shit will always get in the way of science
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:44, Share, Reply)
But we are not in any position to test whether or not Hawkins Radiation is real at the moment, but that does not invalidate it.
Likewise, many of us accept that the level of data in favour of evolution is strong enough to accept. That alters the belief of many who previously might have followed doctrine which dictates ID.
In the future more elements of religious belief will be either confirmed or rejected (not everything in the Bible (for example) is wrong, it is just old knowledge).
The fundamental centre of religion 'is there a divine force' does not really enter into science at all, since it doesn't really matter a fig whether a black hole radiates because someone wants it to or just because it does. What matters is whether it radiates and how that affects the universe around it.
Science is being used as an anti religious tool lately and, frankly, I think it demeans science.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:56,
Share,
Reply)
YES
Science and religion are not polar opposites.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:38,
Share,
Reply)
Why?
I myself am a Christian. However, I am also a fully signed up member of the earthicans.
My religion however, is my interpretation. You can not tarnish the whole religious world with the views of a minority of people. And at the same time, I will not tar the whole scientific community with your fundamentalism.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:59,
Share,
Reply)
It never ceases to amaze me
how upset religious types get when the facts are stated
It is simply a fact that religion and science are incompatible. Science seeks to disprove theories by experiment, religion seeks to perpetuate theories by faith.
You can label me as as a fundy if you wish; my stance is based in rationality alone after all. It would appear that yours is rather more emotive and subjective. Emotions and subjective opinion are fallible and provide no credible basis for scientific decision-making, unlike facts and probability.
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:11,
Share,
Reply)
OK,
well explain to me how I can believe in Evolution and such, but at the same time treat people in a way that I would like to be treated myself? Because that is what my religion is for me.
Surely that makes them compatible?
It is a silly person who confuses Doctrine with Religion.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:14,
Share,
Reply)
Can you explain
why an atheist like me also treats others as I would like to be treated myself. Some of us do it because it's the right thing to do, religion has nothing to do with it.
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:04, Share, Reply)
I totally agree,
being a nice person is not the sole right of religious people. However, I take guidance from my religion on how to live my life. Exactly the same way as I am sure that you, as me, also learnt from society how to be a thoroughly nice chap!
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:11,
Share,
Reply)
Could you please explain your argument as it relates to quakerism?
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:17,
Share,
Reply)
Could you offer some detail on why you think they are?
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:12,
Share,
Reply)
I hate to pop in here,
but can you please start writing materialism. It is starting to grate.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:56,
Share,
Reply)
I am an an athesist but agree with you
though I'm not sure that your argument 2)
really stands up, the same point could be made about not believing that there are little blue aliens living in the core of the moon, I don't believe there are, but I have no proof that there are not, the same applies to my lack of belief in God, to me its best to use Occam's Razor: No more things should be assumed to exist than are absolutely necessary
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:49, Share, Reply)
In a test to see whether there are people floating above their bodies,
the assumption that they might be is necessary.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:52,
Share,
Reply)
I agree in this case there is a phenomena to be explained
so assumptions/ideas/theories should be put to the test, people do have weird experiences when near death, and there seems to be some concordance between the experiences that different people have, why is this the case? lets try and find out...
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:59, Share, Reply)
with Derek Acorah
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:32,
Share,
Reply)
I use this theory for my underpants
I have 8 pairs, which essentially is one too many for the week, but the eighth is there in case I shit myself, therefore God doesn't exist, QED.
(
Brandy_Bumwinkle, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:54,
Share,
Reply)
It's an interesting study none the less.
What is it we see, why do we see these things? Is it because of unknown forces, is it us entering another dimension, is it our body doing odd things as it shuts down?
It wouldn't mean science would collapse if wrong, just that it would adjust to the new information accordingly.
I do, even though I'm an "athiest" (I hate titles, why does everyone need to be categorised?) myself, believe in the soul and many other things. It's interesting to exlore all these theories. They teach us things.
(
vix0r was not Matthew on, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:38,
Share,
Reply)
in this case, the title is misplaced
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:44,
Share,
Reply)
No, apparently atheists are allowed to believe in a higher power.
I got called ignorant by a bunch of atheists here for suggesting otherwise.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:41,
Share,
Reply)
I thought that was agnostic?
Anyway, I don't believe in a higher power. Just that there must be an energy to power our bodies and minds, and I don't believe the body could think like we do all by itself without some sort of conscious energy occupying it in a co-dependency.
(
vix0r was not Matthew on, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:22,
Share,
Reply)
some groups have raised lots of funding to locate Noahs ark
i saw a tv show on them. they use highly dubious sat photo interpretation (my opinion as a geo. I'd look for a radiatiating corprolite pattern on the ground) and are working under the assumption that it must exist.
in science, often the only success that matters is raising funding.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:51,
Share,
Reply)
I think that flood stories exist in enough cultures to be relatively sure that there was a great flood.
I would suggest that Noah, in some form, did exist and did have an ark.
Of course, being made of wood, I see no point in looking for it, unless it was made of Yew, which it wasn't.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:59,
Share,
Reply)
"that Noah, in some form, did exist and did have an ark."
thats a bit of a cop out. Are you looking for a canoe and overflowing creek. if so, whats the point? Thats like saying, im not saying we will find the actual source crater of the Deccan volcanics, but we should find with study that somewhere, something has come out of the ground
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:05,
Share,
Reply)
Yes.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I do think that the assumption that Noah's Ark existed is not an unreasonable one.
If they truly believe they can find it then that is worth pursuing.
I do not believe that they can find it and think that they are daftys, but I have not seen their data.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:11,
Share,
Reply)
Id say that "true belief" shouldn't be the basis of any endeavour
people are capable of believing a lot of dangerous nonsense, and the stonger they believe, the less likely they are of taking notice of any evidence that might suggest the contrary. not the best proponents of the scientific method
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:18,
Share,
Reply)
Hmm.
I think that you believe things that you think are true.
Because you and I see unquestioning religious fervour as daft, we think that this is not valid, but I imagine that to some it seems ridiculous that we believe what we read from Hawkins as much as we think that believing what is written by Luke is worthy of further study.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:32,
Share,
Reply)
luke is a 2000 year old book written by some one we know nothing of other than his own accounts of himself
hawkins is a scentist, he supplies evidnece for what he beilves. sceicne is rigrous, claims made by people are challnged. exspremnets have to be reapeatble. relgious belif is completly impossible do disprove. some one simply states that somthing is true. if you ask why they just say that they have faith. which is essential saying well i beilve it. you can ever test wether what they are saying is true. you cant do that in science. you dont read in new secintist "hawkins belives that the unverse is like this becuase he thinks it would be nice". know scintfic theories are basesd on reasnable exspalntions with logical reasoning. relgion is based on 2000 year old unsported accounts. any senible historan would questions the truth of many accounts of ceasars account of counquering britain. they wouldnt accpt it as objective fact like christians do with luke. there is clear and obvious diffecne between making stuff up an creating reasnable exspalntion of events
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:10, Share, Reply)
You forget the unarguable corroborative books also!
Matthew, Mark and John ;)
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:18,
Share,
Reply)
i don't believe anything
i carry around in my mind a set of hypothesis that seem to be the best current explanation for whatever phenomen that i witness or interests me.
belief and faith are just lazy buckets people piss their brains into
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:42,
Share,
Reply)
So by your logic
someone needs to completely understand every scientific theory they believe in, otherwise they're just putting their 'faith' in people they consider smarter than themselves?
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:49,
Share,
Reply)
*claps*
This is the tersest and most accurate critique of faith ever posted on b3ta.
"belief and faith are just lazy buckets people piss their brains into"
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:58,
Share,
Reply)
So why are you pissing your lazy brain into these buckets then?
You have displayed more blind faith than anyone else posting in this thread. Even the religious types.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:14,
Share,
Reply)
You can look at the formation of the aral and caspian seas
at one point, they were habitated valleys, then due to erosion the mediterranean filled the fuckers up.
That would be a flood of large enough proportions.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:43,
Share,
Reply)
I agree that this is the most likely explanation.
I think it is reasonable to assume that there was a chap called Noah who had a boat and set off to start a new life after the flood.
Whether it is worth looking for his boat is another matter, since it isn't realistically going to be found.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:55,
Share,
Reply)
Well, yes.
but if someone wants to spend their life looking for it, I'm not going to hold them back. If someone wants to fund that person, good for them.
It's not my money and it's not my time so I say let them eat cake.
People spent a lot of time trying to turn lead into gold. Using their piss. Without those crazies, we wouldn't have modern chemistry.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:05,
Share,
Reply)
WHY IS NOBODY PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS
MODERN CHEMISTRY WAS CREATED BY PEOPLE TRYING TO TURN LEAD INTO GOLD USING THEIR PISS.
"it's a load of bollocks"
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:20,
Share,
Reply)
Of course it is a load of bollocks!
If only they had used shit!
:D
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:22,
Share,
Reply)
Strange reply
We have no real scientific understanding behind death. So having a theory on a 'soul' existing would hardly change any rules of science.
"Science is best served by research in areas likely to bear fruit."
ffs! That's the whole point in research, do you think the experiment at the LHC will definitely bear fruit then? Again, it's theory and speculation. I personally don't think it will show anything as I don't think the collision will happen at a fast enough speed, "near light speed" isn't "light speed". Yet they still spent billions on the project, and you are moaning about a relatively costless experiement into death...
Sort it out!
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:53,
Share,
Reply)
The LHC is worthwhile endeavour
A project that costs as much as the LHC has not being conjured out of thin air. It has a large basis for the research, or it would never had been approved or built.
It's a mindset thing. You either assume that some things have a greater likelihood of producing a result, or you assume every endeavour is equally valid and so all avenues shoudl be explored. There just isn't enough time or money to do everything, so effort needs to be spent on those things that might produce results.
Occam's Razor is a valuable tool for critical thinking and rational decision making.
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:59,
Share,
Reply)
Erm...
I have. That's exactly why I started this thread! If you apply Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is probably the correct one, in the absence of contradictory evidence) to this mindless experiment, one is left with a simple conclusion:
Don't bother.
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:27,
Share,
Reply)
You complete idiot
Occam's Theory does not suggest not bothering to do research to find the facts just because you have made an assumption, if it does then it is, as you put it yourself "a load of bollocks".
"Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups."
That isn't a theory, that is a fact.
Edit: I wanted to change "complete idiot" to fool, but b3ta won't let me, oh well...
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:32,
Share,
Reply)
That's because this has already been Front Paged ;)
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:42,
Share,
Reply)
Yes dear.
Science is not a doctrine.
Assuming that you are right and others are wrong and not bothering to test is precisely the ignorance you are accusing the religious nutjobs of.
At least they don't pretend that they have reached their conclusion logically.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:35,
Share,
Reply)
Are you serious?
So why the fuck study and research anything? Surely the term probably in the statement suggests as much that one should set out to find the contradictory evidence all the more.
Granted, studying why leaves are green would be a stupid endeavour. But the fact is that it has been proven categorically the reason why.
No-one has ever proven or disproved that there is a spirit world! Therefore, in my opinion, it is not unreasonable to further research it.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:36,
Share,
Reply)
"theory"
it has only one meaning
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:30,
Share,
Reply)