|
Author
|
Topic: Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
Message 211 of 268 (260523)
11-17-2005 7:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by nator
11-17-2005 5:37 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
So what? It's still the E V I D E N C E that is needed. And it takes others R E P L I C A T I N G the first person's reults to confirm them further. and that's the scientific method.
Your missing the point...again.... In the mean time until eveidence is found, we operate in a false sense of what is right and wrong, but hey thats ok. That induces peer pressure, maybe not amoung scientists too much, but amoung the population, and the people who actually use it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 205 by nator, posted 11-17-2005 5:37 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 218 by nator, posted 11-17-2005 8:19 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 212 of 268 (260526)
11-17-2005 7:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by nator
11-17-2005 5:40 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
When the professional wrestlers in the WWF take folding chairs and hit each other with them, do you blame the folding chair manufacturers for the wrestlers' using them for a bad purpose?
I blame the people who buy the tickets and go watch it. When a televangelists, or a cursade hurts people, who do we blame, the person or the religion? Can't you put all your responses and condense them into one? It makes you seem like your out of control.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by nator, posted 11-17-2005 5:40 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 220 by nator, posted 11-17-2005 8:24 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 213 of 268 (260527)
11-17-2005 8:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 207 by nator
11-17-2005 5:49 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
It's only been a few hundred years, you know, since SCIENCE made your life expectancy quite a lot longer, made it possible for you and your children to avoid most formerly common dangerous infectious diseases, and for proper dentistry to save their teeth rotting out, but hey, you can just dismiss all of that because people still die.
What are you talking about? I am not dismissing anything. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 207 by nator, posted 11-17-2005 5:49 AM | | nator has replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 214 of 268 (260528)
11-17-2005 8:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 208 by nator
11-17-2005 5:58 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
I shudder to think what would happen to biomedical science if 80% of the people working in it were incompetent.
How would you even measure that, besides publishing your discoverys. Not everone is in R+D.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 208 by nator, posted 11-17-2005 5:58 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
AdminPhat
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 215 of 268 (260530)
11-17-2005 8:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 213 by riVeRraT
11-17-2005 8:01 AM
|
|
five posts in a row?
riVeRraT, hello and how are you? I noticed that you have made the last five posts in a row....are you having a conversation with yourself? Lets get back on topic, here. Here is the OP:
Ohnhai writes: I was musing about the notion that some people might be holding on to a set of inherited and quite thoroughly discredited ideas in their belief paradigm-- not because of any remaining real conviction in those ideas but because of a subconscious fear of the social ramifications of denouncing the ideas taught to them by their family, peers and social group. And, perhaps, also a fear of up-setting God. To me it seems, there is also a fear of admitting that the implications of science diminish our place in the universe--as if there was something to be ashamed of in admitting our place as wondrous example of the amazing diversity and scope of the marvel that is life! In science there no shame in getting something wrong. It can be initially embarrassing but acceptable so long as you don’t dig in and throw a tantrum when all your peers show you all the evidence that highlights why you are wrong. In regard to Religion on the other hand, I have read of many cases where people have left their church and they have become the social stigma of their community. In more extreme cases these people have been hounded, tormented, and even killed for even questioning the teachings and beliefs in light of new discoveries and facts. Peer pressure is a powerful thing. Peer punishment is truly something to be feared. In religion, especially, there is clearly a well of shame and embarrassment, and not least, fear for some to accept that the wonder that us humans are having been part of the process and not a special specific creation. Lets refocus on answering Ohnhai and not fussing with each other like siblings! 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 213 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 8:01 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 219 by Phat, posted 11-17-2005 8:22 AM | | AdminPhat has not replied | | | Message 225 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 5:55 PM | | AdminPhat has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 216 of 268 (260534)
11-17-2005 8:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by riVeRraT
11-17-2005 7:48 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
quote:
I wanted to be fair and say 80%, but really I think it is 90%.
No I never heard that rule, funny.
Maybe thats why the bible says such a small percentage of people will actually make it, lol.
Of course, if you believe that to be true, you must believe that 90% of the Bible is crap.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 7:48 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 228 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 6:29 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 217 of 268 (260538)
11-17-2005 8:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 210 by riVeRraT
11-17-2005 7:53 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
quote:
I completely understand what the scientific method is "supposed" to be.
I don't think so. Or, if you do, you are not able to convey that effectively. Look, rat, when all those around you read what you say, then come back to you with the same response; "you are getting it wrong", and they each say the same thing about how you are getting it wrong, maybe it isn't the rest of the world, but you, that is getting it wrong.
quote:
I also understand the "reality" that scientists think they operate in.
No shit? Wow, you understand all about being a scientist without actually being one or knowing any!
quote:
I am just bringing out some real world views, and not really disagreeing with people too much. I am asking you to think outside the box, although you think I am in a box.
They aren't "real world views", though. They are what you imagine to be the case, but when those who know better than you try to correct you about what you imagine, you dig in. If you think your imagination is more "real" than those in the field, then so be it.
quote:
Science has had a huge affect on our reality, and peer pressure. To think otherwise is just silly.
Nobody is denying this.
quote:
That affect is in no way un-biased. But science, and scientist do not want to take any blame because hey, scientific knowledge cannot hurt anyone, unless you use it. That is just silly.
So, you must believe that Henry Ford is an evil bastard for inventing the automobile because people have used cars to run people over. Correct? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 08:20 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 210 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 7:53 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 218 of 268 (260539)
11-17-2005 8:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by riVeRraT
11-17-2005 7:56 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
quote:
In the mean time until eveidence is found, we operate in a false sense of what is right and wrong, but hey thats ok. That induces peer pressure, maybe not amoung scientists too much, but amoung the population, and the people who actually use it.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please try to make more sense and express yuorself more clearly.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 7:56 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
Back in the saddle again (original post)
Ohnhai writes: I have read of many cases where people have left their church and they have become the social stigma of their community. In more extreme cases these people have been hounded, tormented, and even killed for even questioning the teachings and beliefs in light of new discoveries and facts. It is a sad thing to be brainwashed by organized religion. In context to the early Christians, we really have no basis to determine if they were borderline cultists within the context of the larger culture OR if they truly had something going on that the larger culture should learn from. When I say "we" I include all of us responding to this post. Now...as for "I", I believe that the early Christians wer not mere victims of peer pressure to pray in the upper room and freak out over signs and wonders. I believe that these people were an imparted bunch that were as close to God as any human before or since. God was not merely a concept of agreement externally...He was a living presence internally! These are my opinions and are thus to be treated as such, BTW> 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by AdminPhat, posted 11-17-2005 8:05 AM | | AdminPhat has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 220 of 268 (260541)
11-17-2005 8:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 212 by riVeRraT
11-17-2005 7:59 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
When the professional wrestlers in the WWF take folding chairs and hit each other with them, do you blame the folding chair manufacturers for the wrestlers' using them for a bad purpose? quote:
I blame the people who buy the tickets and go watch it.
EXACTLY!!!!!!! The people who make the folding chairs have no control over how people use them, do they? Similarly, if the information scientists discover is put to a bad use by others, it is not the fault of science for simply making the discovery.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 212 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 7:59 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 221 of 268 (260543)
11-17-2005 8:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 213 by riVeRraT
11-17-2005 8:01 AM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
You dismissed doctors as "an authority on your health" because "people still die needlessly". I asked why you expect all doctors and scientists to be perfect, or godlike. Dissing doctors as health authorities because they make mistakes or because some deaths could be prevented is the same as requiring them to never make mistakes. IOW, requiring them to be perfect, or godlike. Please pay attention to your own arguments. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 08:28 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 213 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 8:01 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 222 of 268 (260546)
11-17-2005 8:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by Ben!
11-16-2005 1:57 PM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
quote:
This may be true in some fields of science, but at least in cognitive science, the degree to which this is true is questionable. I think nwr would also attest to the degree in which old, philosophical ideas on the nature of mind dominate people's ways of thinking. Breaking away from these things is hard, and convincing them takes more than just evidence--it takes extreme literary skills and a slew of literary devices to even get people to question the premises upon which their ideas rest.
The problem with this is that "old philosophical ideas" are not inherently bad. They just need to be put into a testable format, and tested. This sort of thing is ongoing in science, all the time. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 08:51 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by Ben!, posted 11-16-2005 1:57 PM | | Ben! has not replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 223 of 268 (260557)
11-17-2005 11:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by riVeRraT
11-16-2005 1:57 PM
|
|
Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
riVeRrat
So we must take responsibility in the gaining of all scientific knowledge. Not everything is for the "greater good". Some only look to gain knowledge to use it for what is and should be wrong. That is ludicrous.How can you know beforehand what knowledge is worthwhile and which is not? The knowledge is atool in the same way an axe is a tool. That a person using it can build with it or hack a person into bloody clots does not change the neutrality of the tool.Nor does the problem lay with the knowledge but in our use of that knowledge. Do you use electricity in your life? Of course you do,yet people are tortured with electricity, people die from accidents involving electricity and pollution directly resulting from the implementation of electricity does huge damage. Do we therefore say no to the knowledge of the generation of electricity? That it serves a "greater good" means little to those who are damaged by it. If one takes the knowledge and uses it to harm others how is the knowledge to blame? The responsibilty is the use of the technology not the technology itself.
But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by riVeRraT, posted 11-16-2005 1:57 PM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 226 by riVeRraT, posted 11-17-2005 6:01 PM | | sidelined has replied |
|
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: 07-28-2001
|
|
|
Message 224 of 268 (260565)
11-17-2005 12:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by Ben!
11-16-2005 8:55 PM
|
|
Re: cognitive science and evidence
"but maybe we just want to push this into the "Is psychology science?" thread as an argument against that viewpoint" Yeah, do that...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by Ben!, posted 11-16-2005 8:55 PM | | Ben! has not replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
Re: five posts in a row?
Why is it that Schraf can post 5 in a row, and I can't?
I asked her to condense her responses, so I wouldn't have to have 5 EVC admin replys in my email box, and I wouldn't have to post 5 responses.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by AdminPhat, posted 11-17-2005 8:05 AM | | AdminPhat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 229 by AdminPhat, posted 11-18-2005 2:55 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2