• bobbiethejean

    I’ll just leave this here because I think it is relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmJ-j61tXvk

    • Rhoid Rager

      How I missed you! <—It's Adam Goodwin, btw. ;)

    • mannyfurious

      I agree, it’s kind of goofy when people try to say science “doesn’t work” while typing on a computer with access to the internet, while cars and airplanes and cell phones create a constant buzz of noise in the background.

      Science obviously works.

      However, there are certain places science cannot go. There are certain answers that require too much information that the scientific method just can’t encompass. I mean, are eggs good for us or not? Some science says yes, some says no, but the problem is that there’s too much information that needs to be evaluated. Each body probably reacts differently to the molecular make-up of eggs for completely different reasons.

      But eggs are the least of my worries. If science can’t answer whether or not I should be eating eggs, I doubt it’s got much of anything significant to say about the profound existential wonders I have… and least from the perspective of most scientists. There are always exceptions (Bohm is always the first to come to mind for myself as he seemed to understand that science actually did point towards something grand and wonderful that most other scientists were missing).

      • bobbiethejean

        Interesting thoughts. :)

        Personally, I think science can go anywhere, at least in principle. The only limitation, it seems to me, is us. We are limited. The reason science can’t tell us “eggs, yea or nay” is because we don’t know enough. That’s always the problem. We don’t know enough about human biology. We don’t know enough about chicken biology. We don’t know enough about genetics. We don’t know enough about any number of random things that may be affecting eggs and our reaction to them. If we knew everything there was to know about eggs and human biology, science could tell us yea or nay with a fair degree of certainty. Unfortunately, as I said, we are limited. It is possible we may never know the answer to that particular question. Then again, maybe we will. :) Ya never know. Science is a wondrous thing and its only limitations are in us, I believe. At least that’s how I see it.

        Ya ask me, I think we should start funding science and education like they are going extinct because…. well….. I think they may be.

        • mannyfurious

          Sure, I would largely agree with that. I still feel that when it comes to answering the “big” questions, perhaps there is just too much information that has to be accounted for, whether it’s a failure of science or limited because of the human scope (I personally now believe it’s the latter). Therefore, I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable if people search for answers to certain questions outside of science, although I do think those answers have to account for science and have to be compatible with science, to some extant, if that makes sense. It’s the difference between blind faith and a healthy curiosity.

    • echar

      It appears that you did not watch the video, because your video appears childish and embarrassing (for you) in relation. From my perspective you are expressing what Howard Bloom is working to grow out of.

      From my understanding, Howard Bloom not only says that science works, but also says there is more. I agree with him, he also warns against a cult of personality. I think this is because it encourages people to make assumptions vicariously.

      • bobbiethejean

        Firstly, I was posting it because I felt it AGREED with the video. Secondly, I had written several paragraphs pertinent to the video that Disqus ate for some reason. I didn’t feel like bothering to retype all that. So who should feel embarrassed now? And on a video about the danger in assumption no less. Oh, irony.

        • echar

          Uh huh. I can only go on the proof of the video you posted.

          • bobbiethejean

            Yeah….. the video I posted about science working onto a video about how science works.

          • echar

            Richard Dawkins, the poster boy for dogmatic scientism?

          • bobbiethejean

            It works……… bitches.

          • echar

            It’s sad that Dawkins is so popular, and a beacon for asshole atheists. Hopefully it’s a stepping stone before the rock bottom. If they can get past themselves, or the cult of personality that plagues progress.

            It only works so far…. bitches.

          • bobbiethejean

            Only so far as the underdeveloped imaginationless brains of people like you limit it. I’m sure we’d have colonized the moon by now if it weren’t for anti-science movements throughout the ages and I’m sure we’d have a cure for cancer if we put more money into science and education instead of blowing up brown people overseas.

          • echar

            The point I am trying to make and failing to get across is that after watching Dawkins after bloom eloquently speak, was like watching the school system force standardized tests for the past 50 years. Undeveloped, you are funny. Come back after you’ve dared to have an original thought for once in your life.

            Note: I wrote asshole atheists, denoting two schools. You must identify with the first that I listed?

          • bobbiethejean

            After I’ve dared to have an original thought? You mean like these? http://bobbie-the-jean.deviantart.com/gallery/

            You’re perfectly entitled to not like Richard Dawkins; he can be kind of a dick. Personally, I like his lack of patience for bullshit. I like his sarcastic wit. I like his logical if not heavyhanded approach to smacking morons. Is he a doucheflute on occasion? Sure. No one is perfect. And knowing what I know about Bloom I certainly wouldn’t say he’s perfect either.

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    I like Howard Bloom’s The God Problem, but I’d recommend Oolon Colluphid’s Trilogy Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes, and Just Who is this God Person Anyway?

    • echar

      Thanks for the recommends.

  • mannyfurious

    But the method can theoretically be applied to all things, to some extant. If I believe in supernatural realms of some sort, science has to at least leave the door open for that kind of possibility, otherwise I’m simply believing things because I want to, because they’re comforting to me to some degree. And that’s not always a good way to go about things. I do think there are some things are “true” that aren’t necessarily verifiable by the scientific method, but those things are not precluded by the method either. It’s like miracles. Miracles don’t fit into what we know about the world as we experience it through human consciousness (i.e. the laws of physics preclude them from happening). However, I don’t totally discount certain “psychological” phenomena because nothing in science that I know of precludes these things from happening. Science hasn’t even defined what consciousness is, so it can’t tell us what it is or is not capable of.

  • echar

    Where ever you left it?

  • mannyfurious

    I don’t have any proof of “supernatural” activity. I’m not even sure if the things I’m think of can be considered “supernatural” precisely because I’m mostly thinking about things that occur in/of/with/about consciousness, and consciousness is not understood by science. And while I don’t believe in UFOs, I don’t totally discount them (that would be like people a thousand years ago laughing that the idea of a telephone or a TV, if we weren’t at least open to the idea of advanced technology) and occasionally I run across UFO stories that are somewhat difficult to explain. I mean, the list goes on, but the only point I’m trying to make is that, as you said, the “doors are open” to a lot of different phenomena. We may not have proof, but the fact that the science as we know it doesn’t preclude certian things, means we shouldn’t blindly dismiss them, either.

  • mannyfurious

    In what context? You’re reading what you want to read and ignoring what I’m actually writing. I have given no specific examples of what I’m specifically talking about, so how you know the context? All I’ve said is that, in the broadest “context,” science does not know what consciousness is, so it really cannot, at this point, tell us what it is capable of or not. That’s not “pseudoscience” that’s a fact. That’s why we read guys like Eagleman, Chalmers, Dennett, Jaynes, et. al. Because the question of what consciousness is is far from answered and it benefits the questioner to explore all the different perspectives of what it MIGHT be.

21