Creationists and people who believe in ghosts or other paranormal stuff, are actually caused by scientists keeping too ignorant to them, placing Creationists and believers in paranormal stuff in the same box as lunatics, in that they don't want to discuss anything with them.
I believe this is the main reason for the rise of creationism and ghost stories in TV documentaries these days.
They believe, with a good reason, that scientists are "up to something". By keeping ignorant to these people, scientists are actually ignoring the problem of creationists and the like.
It certainly doesn't help when they stay arrogant towards them and call creationists and the like "lunatics" (or likewise) or even worse yet:
To simply say "read books". People don't have the time or energy to search around for the evidences. If you have evidence for a theory, you HAVE to present it DIRECTLY to those asking for it. You shouldn't just point to a book, and then say "read it!" - people don't want to read an entire book just to get the line or sentence that convince them. Point at least to the pages in the book.
Too many times, I have come across scientific or semi-scientific articles and books, refering to other litterature without specifying the page number or specific chapter where the source of the claim made in the article has its origin. Actually, worse yet it is too common for scientists to simply state the authors, not the book!!!
Like in this Wikipedia article about the origins of the New Testament:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament)
Note that one of the sources of the claims says:
Quote^ McDonald & Sanders, page 277
Nobody knows who Mcdonald & Sanders are, but after a search on Google, I found out it was the book Canon Debate with the ISBN-10 number 0801047080
It simply ain't fair to hide your sources that way! People should NOT spend time searching for YOUR sources!
Scientists don't even want to discuss ghosts or other paranormal phenomenaThe other reason science is looked down upon in various areas amongst common people, is because scientists don't even want to discuss, they don't even want any concern about what matters for common folklore, like paranormal phenomena. The least they could do would be to at least spend some time studying the subject and doing some research.
I heard, during the end part in a TV documentary about life after death, 5 years ago, that scientists, in the coming years, had to figure out wether or not people with Near Death Experiences could actually recall and see things they wouldn't otherwise be able to see, like placing hidden stuff behind boxes or furniture etc. and then ask questions to those who experienced it, what they saw, and do some statistics to see wether these people were actually able to see things (accurately!) they wouldn't otherwise have seen.
I've heard NOTHING about this research, after 5 years!!!
I suspsect scientists are simply abandoning it. Scientists should serve the common folks, not the interests of themselves, and the fact that they do otherwise, and only spend time on research on subjects THEY (scientists) find interesting instead of subjects that common folks find interesting, is the same as being a snob!
I'm not saying scientists should come to the conclusion in favor of the paranormal. I'm just saying they should spend some time researching it!
Scientists are acting like an elite group, and that is THE reason of the rise of Creationism and paranormal TV series!
I'm not sure if you're joking or just really stupid. Every science journal in the world is open to you, and the "easy lines" are spread to everyone, everywhere. Creationists just reject them and refuse to listen to anything.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"I'm not saying scientists should come to the conclusion in favor of the paranormal. I'm just saying they should spend some time researching it!
After 500 years of scientific investigation, there is no evidence of paranormal activity. If some individual has suddenly stumbled across some hard evidence then it's up to him to show the evidence and convince the sceptical scientific community. Considering that funds for scientific research has been dwindling over the past decades, few respectful scientists are going to spend their time chasing ghosts.
QuoteScientists are acting like an elite group, and that is THE reason of the rise of Creationism and paranormal TV series!
Most of this rise is due to TV channels in search of sensationalism in order to boost their ratings, as this will attract sponsors and more money into the coffers of TV producers. And it has always been the tactics of science detractors to portray scientists as elite, a tactic that is successful in the US because the country has a long history against intellectualism.
I grew up in a house that was supposedly haunted. Applying skeptical analysis to every "event" that occurred in 12 years, not one thing that happened could not be explained away by natural causes such as aging drying wood causing separation leading to creaking boards, and so on. I studied paranormal stuff and conspiracy theories for years, and can say that more time has been spent on it than it deserves.
I can count on my basic cable at least 3-5 shows a night on some form of paranormal claim. Every so-called examination of paranormal, ghosts and so on amounts to hucksterism selling BS as some form of rational examination. It is crap, period.
Scientists can't "discuss" science with people who refuse to acquire the minimum level of education needed to understand the discussion. Are scientists elitists? If by "elitist" you mean someone with knowledge that most people don't have, yes they are. But a scientist discussing evolution with a creationist is like a fish trying to describe breathing with gills to a man - the creationist just isn't equipped to understand the discussion (in this case, not intellectually equipped).
The problem isn't scientists, it's that creationists want scientists to explain science in ways that require no knowledge or thought - even science that requires years of study before you can get a small glimpse of what the particular science is about. For instance, no one without at least a secondary school education is going to understand evolution, so creationists, many of whom have 6 years or less of education (or, worse, only religious indoctrination that was called "education") refuse to accept evolution because they're not capable of understanding it. Creationists have been taught that to understand something all you have to do is believe it. It's false, but they refuse to accept that it's false.
As far as the supernatural, science is he study of the natural, so of course scientists refuse to discuss, as scientists, the supernatural. The scientific method can't be applied to beliefs or anecdotes. If a creationist has actual evidence of the supernatural (not "we can't explain it in any natural way", which is all anyone has ever come up with as "evidence"), science will examine that evidence. There's currently a US$1 million prize for the first person to provide actual evidence of the supernatural. No one has been able to claim it yet.
But don't blame scientists for not being able to educate the uneducable - it's the fault of their parents for not making sure that their children were educated for the 21st century, not the 1st century.
QuoteScientists are causing Creationism (and the like)!
This is a non sequitur in logic. Creationism is caused by ignorance of how real science works and magical thinking and superstitious nonsense. All supernatural events have been shown to be bogus by science and magicians that know how easily people are fooled in their ignorance. The Discovery Chanel used to be reliable and about science until recently when it was bought by people that want sensationalism instead of facts. TV has Hill Billy Vampires, ghost stories, supernatural events, mermaids, prehistoric creatures shown as real, people living with dinosaurs, Science fiction that is just that: fiction that Einstein hated, and so-called "Reality" TV which I find hilarious if there weren't people that actually believe it is real. :roll: :rolleyes: #-o :rollin: Solitary
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Scientists are acting like an elite group, and that is THE reason of the rise of Creationism and paranormal TV series!
You mean scientists act like people who have actually taken the time to do their research. This bothers lazy people because, well, that's just too much work for them. The reason these types of shows exist is because it's cheap and easy entertainment that panders to lazy people who can't think for themselves. And creationists exist because reality and facts threaten their narrow worldviews.
Stop blaming intelligent, hardworking people for the failings of others.
Quote from: "Plu"I'm not sure if you're joking or just really stupid. Every science journal in the world is open to you, and the "easy lines" are spread to everyone, everywhere. Creationists just reject them and refuse to listen to anything.
That's not entirely correct.
Many science journals are locked, in the way that you have to subscribe to their newspaper and pay for the scientific results.
Also, you don't seem to have read my post, especially not the part of it where the quotations and linking to sources in many scientific books or articles refer to authors, rather than the actual specific works of the authors.
I have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.
It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
And lastly, I'd kindly ask that you don't call me stupid. I wasn't expecting that kind of retoric on an intellectual forum like this...
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "Plu"I'm not sure if you're joking or just really stupid. Every science journal in the world is open to you, and the "easy lines" are spread to everyone, everywhere. Creationists just reject them and refuse to listen to anything.
That's not entirely correct.
Many science journals are locked, in the way that you have to subscribe to their newspaper and pay for the scientific results.
Also, you don't seem to have read my post, especially not the part of it where the quotations and linking to sources in many scientific books or articles refer to authors, rather than the actual specific works of the authors.
I have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.
It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
And lastly, I'd kindly ask that you don't call me stupid. I wasn't expecting that kind of retoric on an intellectual forum like this...
Wait, wait, wait. You're saying that because authors of scientific books don't have a source for everything right there on the page, they are what's causing shows like "Ghost Hunters"? Do you realize that the people that watch shows like that are probably not even bothering with the books that you're reading, much less would they care about citing sources?
Are you fucking serious? If you want some intellectual discussion, please don't give us ridiculous premises like this.
You seem to be confusing creationists and people who actually use their brain. Creationists aren't caused by the requirement to pay for highly specialised research, they are caused by people rejecting even a 5 line explanation of scientific research designed for children.
Have you ever actually talked to a creationists? Lack of detailed sources is the last of the reasons why they think the way they do. Not even knowing what a source is would be among the first.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"the part of it where the quotations and linking to sources in many scientific books or articles refer to authors, rather than the actual specific works of the authors.
This is a common in the industry. For example in Introduction to Quantum Fields inCurved Spacetime and the Hawking Effect (//http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0308048v3.pdf)
On page 54, where the references are listed, you get, taking the first reference as an example:
[1] T. Jacobson, "Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equation of state,"
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9504004].
The name of the author is listed first, followed by the title of the article, the name of the publication paper and year. So when an article is written whether in a journal or newspaper, using the name of the author as reference is just common practice.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "Plu"I'm not sure if you're joking or just really stupid. Every science journal in the world is open to you, and the "easy lines" are spread to everyone, everywhere. Creationists just reject them and refuse to listen to anything.
That's not entirely correct.
Many science journals are locked, in the way that you have to subscribe to their newspaper and pay for the scientific results.
Also, you don't seem to have read my post, especially not the part of it where the quotations and linking to sources in many scientific books or articles refer to authors, rather than the actual specific works of the authors.
I have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.
Do you know why science journals cost money? Because research is very expensive. A laymen couldn't understand most of what is talked about in science journals so I'm not sure why they would want access to the full article. The abstracts are always free and it gives a short summery of what the paper is all about, which is enough for anyone who isn't doing their own scientific research. If you want to read up on a single author google their name, they love making their research known.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
By saying this you are giving me the right to call you very stupid. Do you understand how much time and effort a researcher puts into a single paper? Obviously not, which is why you're stupid.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"And lastly, I'd kindly ask that you don't call me stupid. I wasn't expecting that kind of retoric on an intellectual forum like this...
You can't say the things you said, then pretend that you've contributed something on any intellectual level. You've contributed ignorance and stupidity, which gives people the right to call you stupid.
Quote from: "Colanth"Scientists can't "discuss" science with people who refuse to acquire the minimum level of education needed to understand the discussion. Are scientists elitists? If by "elitist" you mean someone with knowledge that most people don't have, yes they are. But a scientist discussing evolution with a creationist is like a fish trying to describe breathing with gills to a man - the creationist just isn't equipped to understand the discussion (in this case, not intellectually equipped).
By elitists I wasn't refering to their education level. Anyone can in principle get an education. It just requires hard work.
By elitist I was refering to those who only publish their scientific journals to (paid) subscription. If it is science, that should be known to everyone or is relating to the general public good, let it be free for everyone!
QuoteThe problem isn't scientists, it's that creationists want scientists to explain science in ways that require no knowledge or thought - even science that requires years of study before you can get a small glimpse of what the particular science is about. For instance, no one without at least a secondary school education is going to understand evolution, so creationists, many of whom have 6 years or less of education (or, worse, only religious indoctrination that was called "education") refuse to accept evolution because they're not capable of understanding it. Creationists have been taught that to understand something all you have to do is believe it. It's false, but they refuse to accept that it's false.
I have no education level AT ALL.
But I do understand the basic principles behind evolution and I agree with all of it.
There are people with way higher education (professors and the like) than me who also know the Darwinian principles, but who refuse to accept the facts. Why people won't accept facts even though they understand it, is a mystery to me.
QuoteAs far as the supernatural, science is he study of the natural, so of course scientists refuse to discuss, as scientists, the supernatural. The scientific method can't be applied to beliefs or anecdotes. If a creationist has actual evidence of the supernatural (not "we can't explain it in any natural way", which is all anyone has ever come up with as "evidence"), science will examine that evidence. There's currently a US$1 million prize for the first person to provide actual evidence of the supernatural. No one has been able to claim it yet.
The problem is that what we call supernatural today, may not be supernatural tomorrow, because if we find a scientific explanation for it, even though it breaks with the traditional scientific understanding of the world, the supernatural is just natural.
Like, for instance, I bet that in a tiny second, Quantum Entanglement was considered supernatural that had to be investigated. Einsten called it "spooky action at a distance" for a reason. Today it has been acknowledged that it does occur - and we have another understanding of how and why it works, so it is no longer supernatural.
QuoteBut don't blame scientists for not being able to educate the uneducable - it's the fault of their parents for not making sure that their children were educated for the 21st century, not the 1st century.
It requires no formal education to understand basic principles of statistics or looking at the evolution of plants and small animals and apply it to larger scales like humans and whole societies. I did it, so can everyone else. It's the simplest of the sciences.
I just can't do the advanced mathematical equations.
In regards to ghosts, there needs virtually nothing to prove or disprove of the theory of ghosts.
The experiment with Near Death Experiences is the simplest research that can be conducted and explained to the public:
Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"In regards to ghosts, there needs virtually nothing to prove or disprove of the theory of ghosts.
The experiment with Near Death Experiences is the simplest research that can be conducted and explained to the public:
Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
Because you didn't bother to find out, a paper exists on this exact topic. I would find it for you but my experience with people who haven't looked up something before claiming it doesn't exist, is that you wouldn't be interested in reading it even if I found it for you. I've found over 20 research papers for people who never bother to read them :(
Quote from: "Icarus"Do you know why science journals cost money? Because research is very expensive. A laymen couldn't understand most of what is talked about in science journals so I'm not sure why they would want access to the full article. The abstracts are always free and it gives a short summery of what the paper is all about, which is enough for anyone who isn't doing their own scientific research. If you want to read up on a single author google their name, they love making their research known.
The abstracts just aint enough for me all the time.
Sometimes, I really wish I could read the whole article, but it seems locked, and I don't want to pay for it.
In my country, science/research is paid by the state (tax money). In addition, much research is conducted on international basis, with various countries cooporating. Its all paid for by the tax payers of the respective countries.
I pay my tax, I expect the free science journals in return. Period.
Quote from: "Icarus"Quote from: "mediumaevum"It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
By saying this you are giving me the right to call you very stupid. Do you understand how much time and effort a researcher puts into a single paper? Obviously not, which is why you're stupid.
Why don't you just put up a counter argument (why are they only refering to the authors, and not their specific works?), instead of stooping to that level?
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
Sorry to rain on your parade:
A new scientific explanation for near-death experiences (//http://io9.com/a-new-scientific-explanation-for-near-death-experiences-1110395345)
QuoteI have no education level AT ALL.
really? I never would have guessed.
Quote from: "Icarus"Quote from: "mediumaevum"In regards to ghosts, there needs virtually nothing to prove or disprove of the theory of ghosts.
The experiment with Near Death Experiences is the simplest research that can be conducted and explained to the public:
Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
Because you didn't bother to find out, a paper exists on this exact topic. I would find it for you but my experience with people who haven't looked up something before claiming it doesn't exist, is that you wouldn't be interested in reading it even if I found it for you. I've found over 20 research papers for people who never bother to read them :(
That's just silly. You are really stooping to an extremely low level.
You can't possibly know what I would like to read and what I won't read.
You don't know me at all, but you have a lot of prejudice against me, from my Introduction post in that subforum.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"The abstracts just aint enough for me all the time.
Sometimes, I really wish I could read the whole article, but it seems locked, and I don't want to pay for it.
In my country, science/research is paid by the state (tax money). In addition, much research is conducted on international basis, with various countries cooporating. Its all paid for by the tax payers of the respective countries.
I pay my tax, I expect the free science journals in return. Period.
Why don't you just put up a counter argument (why are they only refering to the authors, and not their specific works?), instead of stooping to that level?
You insult me, my colleges, and the entire scientific process and you ask why I'm calling you stupid? Really?
Science is funded in part by the government but the private sector also plays a major role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science)
Quote from: "mediumaevum"That's just silly. You are really stooping to an extremely low level.
You can't possibly know what I would like to read and what I won't read.
You don't know me at all, but you have a lot of prejudice against me, from my Introduction post in that subforum.
Honestly I don't care what 'level' I'm 'stooping' too. I have prejudice against people who make large claims having done no research (you in this case). I'll find the paper, give me a minute.
Josephpalazzo beat me to it but the paper is titled: Surge of neurophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
Sorry to rain on your parade:
A new scientific explanation for near-death experiences (//http://io9.com/a-new-scientific-explanation-for-near-death-experiences-1110395345)
It says nothing about the experiment I was talking about. Firstly, it didn't make the experiment with the hidden stuff and question the patients if they found anything hidden behind boxes, furniture etc. and what exactly the patients observed.
Secondly, it conducted research on rats, not humans, but I guess its not that relevant, as I trust the EEG of rats should be similar to that of humans.
Medium... I have sympathies.. The water department in Dayton wouldn't listen to me either and think of me as another morally bankrupt lunatic too..
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
Sorry to rain on your parade:
A new scientific explanation for near-death experiences (//http://io9.com/a-new-scientific-explanation-for-near-death-experiences-1110395345)
It says nothing about the experiment I was talking about. Firstly, it didn't make the experiment with the hidden stuff and question the patients if they found anything hidden behind boxes, furniture etc. and what exactly the patients observed.
Secondly, it conducted research on rats, not humans, but I guess its not that relevant, as I trust the EEG of rats should be similar to that of humans.
Hard science is better than anecdotes.
QuoteFinally, the researchers saw cross-frequency coupling — where different electrical waves work together — in the rats' brains after cardiac arrest. They found coupling between low-frequency gamma waves and theta waves, as well as low-gamma waves with alpha waves. When theta waves couple with gamma waves, it represents a conscious control of the brain. Alpha-gamma coupling, on the other hand, is a feature of visual activation or visual awareness, which includes internal visualization (imagination) — Borjigin suggests this particular brain activity could be behind the bright lights some people see during their near-death experience.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that the brain is capable of well-organized electrical activity — specifically conscious processing — immediately following cardiac arrest, despite the fact that the brain experiences a sharp decrease in oxygen, and was previously thought to be non-functional during this time. These neurophysiological changes may very well be the cause of the near-death experiences people often report.
Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteI have no education level AT ALL.
really? I never would have guessed.
I just knew it would be used against me...
You see, this whole thread, not the OP but the comments to my OP actually prove what I said in my OP about people being arrogant towards those
who question science.
I actually find that Atheist Forums.com is no better in regards to self-questioning than various religious zealot forums.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"I just knew it would be used against me...
You see, this whole thread, not the OP but the comments to my OP actually prove what I said in my OP about people being arrogant towards those
who question science.
I actually find that Atheist Forums.com is no better in regards to self-questioning than various religious zealot forums.
Maybe if you had the mindset of, "Hey guys I would love some more information on how these things I don't understand work" instead of "Scientists are fucking lazy and greedy, what's up with that?"
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteI have no education level AT ALL.
really? I never would have guessed.
I just knew it would be used against me...
You see, this whole thread, not the OP but the comments to my OP actually prove what I said in my OP about people being arrogant towards those
who question science.
I actually find that Atheist Forums.com is no better in regards to self-questioning than various religious zealot forums.
Then leave and take your crackpot theories and your pity party elsewhere. Oh, boo hoo, a bunch of people didn't agree with you. I see this crap all the time....instead of just admitting you're pulling this stuff out of your ass (as we all can see), you call
us narrow-minded for not jumping on your little bandwagon.
Go away if you want. You won't be missed.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Hard science is better than anecdotes.
QuoteFinally, the researchers saw cross-frequency coupling — where different electrical waves work together — in the rats' brains after cardiac arrest. They found coupling between low-frequency gamma waves and theta waves, as well as low-gamma waves with alpha waves. When theta waves couple with gamma waves, it represents a conscious control of the brain. Alpha-gamma coupling, on the other hand, is a feature of visual activation or visual awareness, which includes internal visualization (imagination) — Borjigin suggests this particular brain activity could be behind the bright lights some people see during their near-death experience.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that the brain is capable of well-organized electrical activity — specifically conscious processing — immediately following cardiac arrest, despite the fact that the brain experiences a sharp decrease in oxygen, and was previously thought to be non-functional during this time. These neurophysiological changes may very well be the cause of the near-death experiences people often report.
Then I guess it should be no problem making statistical analysis by the experiments of the hidden stuff I was talking about.
These patients report seing their own body from above. Have some small stuff hidden away so that you can only see it from above, and ask them if they found something while supposedly being "dead", and if they don't report of anything, the study is complete, and then we can say Science has proved there is nothing paranormal.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
Sorry to rain on your parade:
A new scientific explanation for near-death experiences (//http://io9.com/a-new-scientific-explanation-for-near-death-experiences-1110395345)
It says nothing about the experiment I was talking about. Firstly, it didn't make the experiment with the hidden stuff and question the patients if they found anything hidden behind boxes, furniture etc. and what exactly the patients observed.
Secondly, it conducted research on rats, not humans, but I guess its not that relevant, as I trust the EEG of rats should be similar to that of humans.
Check out dr Sartori's website: http://www.drpennysartori.com/ (http://www.drpennysartori.com/)
You'll have to look for the specific article, but she did just that research you mentioned with the hidden objects. I don't really care enough to find the exact research you need, but the conclusion from the research is exactly what you would expect it to be.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4261 (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4261)
QuoteAs an example of the value of anecdotes in suggesting directions for research, Dr. Penny Sartori placed playing cards in obvious places on top of operating room cabinets at a hospital in Wales in 2001, while she was working as a nurse, as part of a supervised experiment. Although she's a believer in the afterlife, and documented fifteen cases of reported out-of-body experiences by patients during her research, not one person ever reported seeing the playing cards or even knowing they were there.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "billhilly"QuoteI have no education level AT ALL.
really? I never would have guessed.
I just knew it would be used against me...
You see, this whole thread, not the OP but the comments to my OP actually prove what I said in my OP about people being arrogant towards those
who question science.
I actually find that Atheist Forums.com is no better in regards to self-questioning than various religious zealot forums.
One invidual (solitary) might have offended you, but then you went on a rant. You should never judge a whole group of people by the behavior of one, in particulat solitary, who is not a representative of this forum.
Nobody is a representative of this forum. We're all a bunch of oddjobs.
Why the hell would anyone go about trying to "prove" that ghosts, life after death, gods, and unicorns don't exist? Aren't there some fairly large monetary rewards out there for the first person who can prove they do exist?
I know I'd buy a unicorn. How cool would that be!
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Hard science is better than anecdotes.
QuoteFinally, the researchers saw cross-frequency coupling — where different electrical waves work together — in the rats' brains after cardiac arrest. They found coupling between low-frequency gamma waves and theta waves, as well as low-gamma waves with alpha waves. When theta waves couple with gamma waves, it represents a conscious control of the brain. Alpha-gamma coupling, on the other hand, is a feature of visual activation or visual awareness, which includes internal visualization (imagination) — Borjigin suggests this particular brain activity could be behind the bright lights some people see during their near-death experience.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that the brain is capable of well-organized electrical activity — specifically conscious processing — immediately following cardiac arrest, despite the fact that the brain experiences a sharp decrease in oxygen, and was previously thought to be non-functional during this time. These neurophysiological changes may very well be the cause of the near-death experiences people often report.
Then I guess it should be no problem making statistical analysis by the experiments of the hidden stuff I was talking about.
These patients report seing their own body from above. Have some small stuff hidden away so that you can only see it from above, and ask them if they found something while supposedly being "dead", and if they don't report of anything, the study is complete, and then we can say Science has proved there is nothing paranormal.
You saw that on a TV documentary ( according to what you said in your OP). That is not a valid source. If you are interested in that subject then go to those people who are doing the hard science.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Then leave and take your crackpot theories and your pity party elsewhere. Oh, boo hoo, a bunch of people didn't agree with you. I see this crap all the time....instead of just admitting you're pulling this stuff out of your ass (as we all can see), you call us narrow-minded for not jumping on your little bandwagon.
Go away if you want. You won't be missed.
Firstly, it is not a matter of wether or not to agree with me.
Secondly, if ANYONE should EVER wonder why religious zealots gets stronger and stronger in politics... I would gladly put a link to this forum, to this particular thread.
I know more kind atheists in real world than you. And no, it is not your atheism that annoys me. It is not your science. It is not you studies. It is not you education level.
Quite the opposite I admire you for having all these qualities.
But frankly, I don't like being spoken to the way you folks do it in here.
Quote from: "billhilly"Why the hell would anyone go about trying to "prove" that ghosts, life after death, gods, and unicorns don't exist? Aren't there some fairly large monetary rewards out there for the first person who can prove they do exist?
I know I'd buy a unicorn. How cool would that be!
HUGE rewards, so far none have been claimed.
Quote from: "Plu"Nobody is a representative of this forum. We're all a bunch of oddjobs.
Speak for yourself.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You saw that on a TV documentary ( according to what you said in your OP). That is not a valid source. If you are interested in that subject then go to those people who are doing the hard science.
The TV documentary did NOT conduct the research. It just told that scientists promissed to do the research and report back on their findings in scientific journals.
I've yet to read these scientific journals about these experiments they promissed to do.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Secondly, if ANYONE should EVER wonder why religious zealots gets stronger and stronger in politics... I would gladly put a link to this forum, to this particular thread.
I know more kind atheists in real world than you. And no, it is not your atheism that annoys me. It is not your science. It is not you studies. It is not you education level.
Quite the opposite I admire you for having all these qualities.
But frankly, I don't like being spoken to the way you folks do it in here.
Atheistforums.com is responsible for religious extremism :lol: I love it. The logic is impeccable.
QuoteI've yet to read these scientific journals about these experiments they promissed to do.
I just pointed you to the website of the person who did the research.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You saw that on a TV documentary ( according to what you said in your OP). That is not a valid source. If you are interested in that subject then go to those people who are doing the hard science.
The TV documentary did NOT conduct the research. It just told that scientists promissed to do the research and report back on their findings in scientific journals.
I've yet to read these scientific journals about these experiments they promissed to do.
Research takes time, money and dedication. But in the meantime you can research it yourself on the internet. Heck a google search on NDE or out of body experiences abound on the net. But be carefully, there is a lot of nonsense also on the net. Your best bet is to go for publication in peer-reviewed articles. If you need to pay a small fee so be it.
Quote from: "billhilly"Why the hell would anyone go about trying to "prove" that ghosts, life after death, gods, and unicorns don't exist? Aren't there some fairly large monetary rewards out there for the first person who can prove they do exist?
I know I'd buy a unicorn. How cool would that be!
I found this using Wikipedia:
http://www.cfiwest.org/calendar/paranormaltest.htm (http://www.cfiwest.org/calendar/paranormaltest.htm)
Well... I must say that for all these particular centers to offer people - around the globe - to prove their paranormal abilities, supposed ghosts etc.
how on Earth can anyone conduct such science? It has to be done at the person in question's homeland, his/her hometown. You can't expect people to want to travel abroad for $50000 with the risk of getting ridiculed.
Do some serious research. Ask people to come and participate, then offer the ones with the real abilities, if proven, the prize.
Do some large study of it with hundreds, maybe thousands of participants.
Everything has to be on fair conditions (travel distance etc.), research is no exception.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You saw that on a TV documentary ( according to what you said in your OP). That is not a valid source. If you are interested in that subject then go to those people who are doing the hard science.
The TV documentary did NOT conduct the research. It just told that scientists promissed to do the research and report back on their findings in scientific journals.
I've yet to read these scientific journals about these experiments they promissed to do.
Research takes time, money and dedication. But in the meantime you can research it yourself on the internet. Heck a google search on NDE or out of body experiences abound on the net. But be carefully, there is a lot of nonsense also on the net. Your best bet is to go for publication in peer-reviewed articles. If you need to pay a small fee so be it.
Isn't 5 years of research enough for this little thing? To question patients about stuff they couldn't possibly know of, shouldn't take 5 years.
You don't want answers. You're like a YEC claiming there are no transitional fossils.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "mediumaevum"The TV documentary did NOT conduct the research. It just told that scientists promissed to do the research and report back on their findings in scientific journals.
I've yet to read these scientific journals about these experiments they promissed to do.
Research takes time, money and dedication. But in the meantime you can research it yourself on the internet. Heck a google search on NDE or out of body experiences abound on the net. But be carefully, there is a lot of nonsense also on the net. Your best bet is to go for publication in peer-reviewed articles. If you need to pay a small fee so be it.
Isn't 5 years of research enough for this little thing? To question patients about stuff they couldn't possibly know of, shouldn't take 5 years.
Five years is a drop in the proverbial bucket. It's been more than 50 years physicists are trying to develop a quantum theory of gravity, and we are not even close. You think that understanding NDE should take 5 years?!?
On another note, see: Near-Death Experiences of Hindus (//http://www.near-death.com/hindu.html). This should give you a glimpse that what people see during NDE is very cultural.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Isn't 5 years of research enough for this little thing? To question patients about stuff they couldn't possibly know of, shouldn't take 5 years.
Get a PhD is Physical Chemistry and spend the rest of your life researching this, the rest of us will continue not to waste our lives.
QuoteYou can't expect people to want to travel abroad for $50000 with the risk of getting ridiculed.
You can't expect researchers to travel all around the world when they already know what the result of the test is going to be. Also, $50.000 is peanuts. The James Randi foundation offers a million dollars.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)
But, unsurpisingly,
QuoteTo date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.
It's not that researchers don't want to do the research; it's that there's nothing there
to research. And again; the research you want has been done, I showed you the researcher, and the results were as to be expected: nobody saw anything.
If you continue to ignore it, we'll only consider you more of a fool. If you'd at least admit that it's been done and there were no unexpected results, at least we'd think you were serious about just wanting to know more, instead of having your mind made up and just whining that reality doesn't agree with your ideas.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteYou can't expect people to want to travel abroad for $50000 with the risk of getting ridiculed.
You can't expect researchers to travel all around the world when they already know what the result of the test is going to be. Also, $50.000 is peanuts. The James Randi foundation offers a million dollars.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)
But, unsurpisingly,
QuoteTo date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.
It's not that researchers don't want to do the research; it's that there's nothing there to research. And again; the research you want has been done, I showed you the researcher, and the results were as to be expected: nobody saw anything.
Thank you very much for the information.
Question:
Why did it take a whole thread of prejudice, hatred and name-calling to figure out that such a comment that you just made, was the only neccessary to counter my Original Post?
Why?
Do people here just love to ridicule people, instead of going straight forward to the answer, with link, source citation and propper information?
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Question:
Why did it take a whole thread of prejudice, hatred and name-calling to figure out that such a comment that you just made, was the only neccessary to counter my Original Post?
Why?
Do people here just love to ridicule people, instead of going straight forward to the answer, with link, source citation and propper information?
Someones in denial.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
Mostly because your opening post contained a lot of bullshit.
If you'd worded it like a proper question and approached it with an attitude of "I want to learn something" instead of the current load of crap about scientists trying to make people ignorant, you would've gotten this post as probably the first answer.
Instead you go off on a rant about lazy scientists not properly sourcing their stuff and daring to ask money for their work along with the completely nonsensical idea that it's the fault of scientists that dumb people refuse to use their brain.
And so you get the kind of response you'd expect from such a topic.
And before you try to bullshit your way out of this, reread your opening post. There is literally not a single questionmark in it. But it's peppered with exlamation marks.
That doesn't make you come across as someone who is only looking to have a question answered.
Quote from: "Icarus"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Question:
Why did it take a whole thread of prejudice, hatred and name-calling to figure out that such a comment that you just made, was the only neccessary to counter my Original Post?
Why?
Do people here just love to ridicule people, instead of going straight forward to the answer, with link, source citation and propper information?
Someones in denial.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
Please read my OP. No, better, I will quote directly from my own OP where this particular sentence applied to:
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Too many times, I have come across scientific or semi-scientific articles and books, refering to other litterature without specifying the page number or specific chapter where the source of the claim made in the article has its origin. Actually, worse yet it is too common for scientists to simply state the authors, not the book!!!
That's what I meant by lazy. This is evident here:
QuoteI have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.
It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
There's no denial.
Quote from: "Plu"Mostly because your opening post contained a lot of bullshit.
If you'd worded it like a proper question and approached it with an attitude of "I want to learn something" instead of the current load of crap about scientists trying to make people ignorant, you would've gotten this post as probably the first answer.
Instead you go off on a rant about lazy scientists not properly sourcing their stuff and daring to ask money for their work along with the completely nonsensical idea that it's the fault of scientists that dumb people refuse to use their brain.
And so you get the kind of response you'd expect from such a topic.
Sorry, but I tried the question mark-thing in real life many times in my life, last time towards a teacher about a math problem when I was studying a little math many years ago. Ever since his reply ("You are not ready for this yet!"), I have stated that I would never ever ask a question about science in a "question-way", but make a statement of my own, that other people (scientists) would have to attack by proving me wrong.
So far, that's the only way I found working for me to get the answers I need.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Too many times, I have come across scientific or semi-scientific articles and books, refering to other litterature without specifying the page number or specific chapter where the source of the claim made in the article has its origin. Actually, worse yet it is too common for scientists to simply state the authors, not the book!!!
That's because scientists don't cite books, they site research papers. If you can find me a research paper where the author has only sited the person who did the research and not the paper I will personally write to the journal and inform them of that error.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"I have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.
It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
Universities don't write books. People write textbooks, which are very different from research papers. Textbooks usually only cite the person because the experiment is so well known that anyone can google the author and easily find a list of his research papers. Inserting huge citations into textbooks is a waste of time because those experiments can be found very easily.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"There's no denial.
You're right, it's ignorance not denial. If you didn't understand there was a difference between a textbook and a research paper you should have started the thread with an open mind instead of assuming you had all the answers.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "Plu"QuoteYou can't expect people to want to travel abroad for $50000 with the risk of getting ridiculed.
You can't expect researchers to travel all around the world when they already know what the result of the test is going to be. Also, $50.000 is peanuts. The James Randi foundation offers a million dollars.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)
But, unsurpisingly,
QuoteTo date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.
It's not that researchers don't want to do the research; it's that there's nothing there to research. And again; the research you want has been done, I showed you the researcher, and the results were as to be expected: nobody saw anything.
Thank you very much for the information.
Question:
Why did it take a whole thread of prejudice, hatred and name-calling to figure out that such a comment that you just made, was the only neccessary to counter my Original Post?
Why?
Do people here just love to ridicule people, instead of going straight forward to the answer, with link, source citation and propper information?
Again you are generalizing. I did not insult you in any of my posts, and I gave two links - one on brain activities during NDE, and a second one on the cultural content of NDE.
If you're intentionally being a dick instead of just asking us what you want to know, don't go and cry about the fact that we're treating you like the dick you're acting like.
You get the same treatment as any other person who comes here making "statements" and not asking questions; ridicule.
Quote from: "Plu"If you're intentionally being a dick instead of just asking us what you want to know, don't go and cry about the fact that we're treating you like the dick you're acting like.
You get the same treatment as any other person who comes here making "statements" and not asking questions; ridicule.
Please provide me with information on what I can do to avoid ridicule in the future on this forum, if I have questions to science!
You say I should ask questions with a question mark instead of making statements. Anything else?
I don't want to be ridiculed...
I'm pretty sure that if you stick with asking genuine questions and accepting reasonable answers, you'll do just fine.
(No guaruantuees that you won't occasionally get some ridicule, I can't control the reactions of others, but I always answer genuine questions with real and open answers.)
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "Plu"If you're intentionally being a dick instead of just asking us what you want to know, don't go and cry about the fact that we're treating you like the dick you're acting like.
You get the same treatment as any other person who comes here making "statements" and not asking questions; ridicule.
Please provide me with information on what I can do to avoid ridicule in the future on this forum, if I have questions to science!
You say I should ask questions with a question mark instead of making statements. Anything else?
I don't want to be ridiculed...
Don't respond to those who are insulting you. Ignore them and you'll do fine.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Question:
Why did it take a whole thread of prejudice, hatred and name-calling to figure out that such a comment that you just made, was the only neccessary to counter my Original Post?
Why?
Do people here just love to ridicule people, instead of going straight forward to the answer, with link, source citation and propper information?
You know, you're really one to talk after speaking to, what, four or five people (most of whom were actually answering your questions and getting annoyed when you disregarded or ignored their answers), and then declaring everyone on this forum to be an asshole.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"But frankly, I don't like being spoken to the way you folks do it in here.
You get what you give.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"religious zealots gets stronger and stronger in politics
Religious zealots are weaker in politics now than ever before in history, unless you're in the former Soviet bloc.
QuoteAsk 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
That's not true at all, and one doesn't have to be a scientists to do that. I worked in an emergency room and operating rooms where there were messages written on top of short walls. Every single person that had an OB experience while floating near the ceiling could ever give the correct answer to what was written. James Randy himself had one and was convinced it was real when he saw himself in bed with his cat while floating around the ceiling until his friends showed him it was impossible because the cat had been locked up on the porch. Neurologist are able to stimulate the brain and cause OB's. What's that tell you? :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteAsk 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.
But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.
I wonder why.
That's not true at all, and one doesn't have to be a scientists to do that. I worked in an emergency room and operating rooms where there were messages written on top of short walls. Every single person that had an OB experience while floating near the ceiling could ever give the correct answer to what was written. James Randy himself had one and was convinced it was real when he saw himself in bed with his cat while floating around the ceiling until his friends showed him it was impossible because the cat had been locked up on the porch. Neurologist are able to stimulate the brain and cause OB's. What's that tell you? :roll: Solitary
The I guess the experiment has already been done.
Thank you.
Oh wow, how did I miss this thread?
I am so sorry to have not done my part to educate the public. This is ALL MY FAULT.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Oh wow, how did I miss this thread?
I am so sorry to have not done my part to educate the public. This is ALL MY FAULT.
We should throw you behind bars, and throw away the keys.
:P
Quote from: "Icarus"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Question:
Why did it take a whole thread of prejudice, hatred and name-calling to figure out that such a comment that you just made, was the only neccessary to counter my Original Post?
Why?
Do people here just love to ridicule people, instead of going straight forward to the answer, with link, source citation and propper information?
Someones in denial.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
My EXACT thought. Lmao :rollin:
I'll tell you who's lazy, but it ain't the authors and scientists....
Quote from: "mediumaevum"But frankly, I don't like being spoken to the way you folks do it in here.
Adults who speak to children as if they're adults are only fooling themselves. If you want to be spoken to about science as someone who understands science, first learn science. If you don't, and you speak to people who do, they'll speak to you as if you can't understand what they're talking about.
Yes, we understand that children don't like being treated like children, but people who deal in reality DO treat children as if they're children - whether the children like it or not. If the child-minded politicians want to keep throwing tantrums about it, they'll end up destroying the world - but reality WILL NOT change to fit their beliefs of how it should be.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Sorry, but I tried the question mark-thing in real life many times in my life, last time towards a teacher about a math problem when I was studying a little math many years ago. Ever since his reply ("You are not ready for this yet!"), I have stated that I would never ever ask a question about science in a "question-way", but make a statement of my own, that other people (scientists) would have to attack by proving me wrong.
Then you're in denial.
Science and math aren't subjects that anyone can fully explain to just anyone who asks. Most people AREN'T ready for the answer to most questions they ask. Which is why science isn't done that way. It's done by education. By the time you're ready to ask a question, you've put in about 8 years of post-graduate study and years of work under someone who is ready to ask questions. Until then you can't even understand the question, let alone the answer. (That means that the question you ask is either incompetent or ludicrous.)
A person without a scientific education who asks for a simple explanation of something in science is like a 3 year old who wants to know the technical reason that the sky "is blue" (it's not) - in a few simple sentences. He's not intellectually equipped to understand, "the atmosphere refracts red light more than it refracts blue light" - but that's the answer. A physicist who gives him that answer is foolish. One who tells him that he's not ready for the answer is telling him about all he's capable of understanding - but it's not a satisfying answer.
That's where you are. You can't understand the actual answers yet, but being told that you can't doesn't satisfy you, and you're unwilling to put in the time and effort needed for you to understand the answers.
Who's lazy?
Quote from: "Colanth"Science and math aren't subjects that anyone can fully explain to just anyone who asks.
So much truth to this. I remember in Introduction to Astronomy, the first thing everyone wanted to know was, "When are we learning about black holes? I want to know about black holes." Toward the end of the quarter, after learning (among other things) about the life cycle of stars, we finally went over black holes. His explanation of what they are and how they work was pretty quick and sounded fairly simple to us at that point, and he capped it off by saying, "Now, aren't you glad we went over all that other stuff first?
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Sorry, but I tried the question mark-thing in real life many times in my life, last time towards a teacher about a math problem when I was studying a little math many years ago. Ever since his reply ("You are not ready for this yet!"), I have stated that I would never ever ask a question about science in a "question-way", but make a statement of my own, that other people (scientists) would have to attack by proving me wrong.
Then you're in denial.
Science and math aren't subjects that anyone can fully explain to just anyone who asks. Most people AREN'T ready for the answer to most questions they ask. Which is why science isn't done that way. It's done by education. By the time you're ready to ask a question, you've put in about 8 years of post-graduate study and years of work under someone who is ready to ask questions. Until then you can't even understand the question, let alone the answer. (That means that the question you ask is either incompetent or ludicrous.)
A person without a scientific education who asks for a simple explanation of something in science is like a 3 year old who wants to know the technical reason that the sky "is blue" (it's not) - in a few simple sentences. He's not intellectually equipped to understand, "the atmosphere refracts red light more than it refracts blue light" - but that's the answer. A physicist who gives him that answer is foolish. One who tells him that he's not ready for the answer is telling him about all he's capable of understanding - but it's not a satisfying answer.
That's where you are. You can't understand the actual answers yet, but being told that you can't doesn't satisfy you, and you're unwilling to put in the time and effort needed for you to understand the answers.
Who's lazy?
I was, in fact, capable of understanding why the sky "is blue", at the age of 5-8.
I understood the basic principles behind taxation and why we need it to have our society running - at the age of 4!
I fully understood the need for waging war against countries to keep peace - before the age of 10.
With an intellectual capacity enough to understand politics at an early age, I do not understand why that is not enough to learn natural sciences.
If I can do so, and I have a normal intelligence, everyone else should be able to do so too.
The problem with other people is that they just are too lazy to sit down and spend some time with their kids explaining them how society and nature works.
They are too busy with other stuff. Thats the problem. Not the people who want to learn something!
The reason I never got an education is manyfolds. First of all, it is because I have difficulties socializing.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"The reason I never got an education is manyfolds. First of all, it is because I have difficulties socializing.
You and most science students, the only difference is it doesn't prevent them from following their passion.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"I was, in fact, capable of understanding why the sky "is blue", at the age of 5-8.
I understood the basic principles behind taxation and why we need it to have our society running - at the age of 4!
I fully understood the need for waging war against countries to keep peace - before the age of 10.
With an intellectual capacity enough to understand politics at an early age, I do not understand why that is not enough to learn natural sciences.
If I can do so, and I have a normal intelligence, everyone else should be able to do so too.
The problem with other people is that they just are too lazy to sit down and spend some time with their kids explaining them how society and nature works.
They are too busy with other stuff. Thats the problem. Not the people who want to learn something!
The reason I never got an education is manyfolds. First of all, it is because I have difficulties socializing.
You seem to be a clever kid and interested in the subject of NDE and OBE. However, not having the credentials, it will be difficult for you to assess anything that you read, whether from the net or from traditional sources like journals, magazines or books. There are two major branches that you can look into: 1) those people who research brain activities in NDE and OBE, 2) those who study the content of what people see or experienced during NDE and OBE.
You also need to understand how scientific research takes place - something you don't seem to have a clue. Were you a student studying any branch of science, you would need to get a PhD (6 years), then do a postdoc (3-6 years), during which you would need to publish your research in peer-review journals, and then get tenure (5 years) at some university, during which you need to secure grants to conduct whatever project you have in mind. This is a long process, and there is no guarantee you will either complete it, or even if you completed it, you will get tenure. Many try, few are selected. You could work in industry but you won't have the freedom as in academic life, as whatever research you will conduct will be dictated by your employer.
Hope this helps.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"I fully understood the need for waging war against countries to keep peace - before the age of 10.
So you probably thought that Hitler caused WWII, right?
(A 10 year old's understanding of why we need war to keep peace is about the same as a 4 year old's understanding of sex - "it means are you a boy or a girl?")
QuoteWith an intellectual capacity enough to understand politics at an early age, I do not understand why that is not enough to learn natural sciences.
Let's see. In order to understand evolution you need to understand physics and biochemistry at the level of someone going for a degree in each - say about 3 years of post-secondary education. That's just to actually understand evolution. Now to understand abiogenesis, you first have to have a firm grasp of evolution, so the very basis for getting an education in abiogenesis is an education in evolution.
That's why "scientists" can't explain things like why science sees no need to study the supernatural to someone who has no more than a high school education, or got a degree in theology or "metaphysics".
QuoteIf I can do so, and I have a normal intelligence, everyone else should be able to do so too.
You have enough understanding to think that you understand science. From your comments here, it's plain to those who do understand science that your "understanding" is at a VERY basic level. Not at all enough understanding to actually understand things like protein folding or why the concept of "species" can't be applied to prokaryotes. And those are the equivalent of the kindergarten of science.
QuoteThe problem with other people is that they just are too lazy to sit down and spend some time with their kids explaining them how society and nature works.
The problem with most people is that while they pretty well understand what they need in life, bookkeeping, airplane piloting, deep sea diving, whatever they do, life's just too short for them to spend the time and effort to learn everything else.
QuoteThey are too busy with other stuff. Thats the problem.
It's not a problem, unless you'd rather live in a cave and use a sharpened stick to get your protein. Life was simple enough then that most people could become expert at everything humans needed to know.
The real problems are that 1) people won't accept things they don't understand and, 2) most people think that they have some sort of "right" to be given some sort of "understanding" of anything they choose to understand. Like an "education pill". The scientists are "holding out on them" by not explaining extremely complex things to them in a simple enough manner for them to understand them fully. "Why should only scientists know about this?" Scientists aren't keeping secrets - everyone is free to spend as much time and effort as the scientist who understands something in order to understand it themselves.
Maybe the real problem is that most people think that science is something so simple that scientists just go into the lab in the morning and discover something - without having put in 25 years of research before they could make the discovery. That the scientist spent his entire life getting to the point that, now when his few remaining hairs are snow white, he made this enormous discovery.
QuoteNot the people who want to learn something!
The people who really want to learn don't post "why are they keeping this from me?" on the internet, they go out and learn it.
QuoteThe reason I never got an education is manyfolds. First of all, it is because I have difficulties socializing.
That's funny, very funny. MOST of the people who invent things, make discoveries, etc., didn't spend 4 years in the pub emptying pitchers of beer, they spent 12 years in a library or lab, alone, learning. Really dedicated scientists are, in my experience, very poor at socializing. Maybe that's why they turn to science - I don't know. But Hawking said that the reason he learned so much is that since he couldn't do much physically, he thought a lot. Einstein wasn't a social butterfly either.
Stop blaming every thing and everyone else for what's wrong. Excuses, excuses.
"Scientists are to blame for creationists."
"Everyone is mean and irrational, and that's why they pick on me."
"I can't socialize with others."
"Lazy people are the problem, not me."
I don't much care for you, but I feel kind of bad for you, too. Based on your posts, I see a person who likes to place blame instead of just dealing with things. And maybe it's because you don't want to face the problem...it's you.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"I have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.
It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.
And lastly, I'd kindly ask that you don't call me stupid. I wasn't expecting that kind of retoric on an intellectual forum like this...
The fuck?
Hey man, speaking as someone who has been in academia for the best part of a decade doing various degrees on the way to completing my PhD (one day!), I'll say that you've missed the point entirely.
What, you want an author to quote, line for line, EVERYTHING they cite in an article (which may just be a page long with text and a couple more pages after that outlining experimental data and results) just becase you can't be bothered to examine further the texts they cite?
I agree, that journals should be free access and authors should be able to publish their material to free access peer reviewed journals. But that's not the same as saying "spoon feed me man!"
Fuck, we have better things to do, like doing more research and contributing to greater disucssion on topics, than spoon feed people who can't be bothered to help themselves.
Oh, but you see, it's the people spending their lifetime doing the research. They're the lazy ones. :-| Jog on son.