"Peer Reviewed" Research

[ralis]

Some of the arguments being made here are going too far, and contribute to the phenomena in science that is known as the Knowledge Filter bias. What happens when a theory becomes too prominent is that the researchers get tunnel vision and they end up discarding evidence against their theory out of hand, simply labeling it "anamolous evidence" and ignoring it or explaining it away with frivilous superficial arguments and excuses. In the end they end up ignoring almost as much "Anomalous Evidence" as they have evidence to support whatever particular theory they subscribe to.

 

So far your narrative contains nothing more than sweeping generalizations, and no substantive evidence to back up your claims.

 

Claiming a sort of research bias as if all pure research is based on emotion is incorrect.

Edited May 25, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

The only problem with peer-reviewed citations and such, is that it totally disallows for the person who is merely self-realized through their own inner work.

 

That is the difference between established scientific theories and spiritual mythological work. The former denotes repeatable research which is reliable to a very accurate approximation. Whereas, the latter is subjective and defies measurement.

Edited May 26, 2011 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

So far your narrative contains nothing more than sweeping generalizations, and no substantive evidence to back up your claims.

 

Claiming a sort of research bias as if all pure research is based on emotion is incorrect.

 

Ralis, everything is based on emotion. Everyone is biased.

 

One thing I find to be true in my experience is that while religions are full of shit and religious people tend to be wacky and of lower intelligence, they are by now used to constant criticism, and they often are willing to admit to flaws when pressed (not everyone, but many are). On the other hand, I seriously don't meet many scientific materialists who can admit to flaws. Part of the reason for that is that the scientific community doesn't really receive true, genuine, valid criticism often enough. So many people in the scientific community really have a self-righteous attitude, like they can do no wrong. Sure, they'll admit to some minor and inconsequential personal fallibility but then they'll say the scientific process takes care of it. It's not a whole lot different from saying, we're all personally fallible but Jesus takes care of it anyway. Both are cop-outs.

[manitou]

That is the difference between established scientific theories and spiritual mythological work. The former denotes repeatable research which is reliable to a very accurate approximation. Whereas, the repeatable of the latter is subjective and defies measurement.

 

I don't think that the fact that it defies measurement invalidates it though. I am an example - I think I understand the concepts folks on this board talk about well enough - and yet I barely made it through the 12th grade. No, the kind of knowledge we have here cannot be quantified. But please don't rule me out because I'm not a person of letters. Also, the word mythological just doesn't seem to fit in with my experience at all. Self realization would be closer, hopefully.

[steve]

Thank you. I believe you are saying theories are useful insofar they are able to offer predictive power to those of us who wish to use them.

 

Let's put away microevolution, because I think microevolution is non-controversial and offers some useful predictive power.

 

Let's bring macroevolution to the forefront of our attention. Steve, what kind of predictive power of macroevolution do you use in your day to day life? If you find the theory of macroevolution valuable, can you please tell me a story or two from your daily life that demonstrates the value of macroevolution from your personal perspective?

Hmm, sorry I didn't answer that the first time. It's a tough question. I think that the evolutionary theory has little direct impact per se on my life. That is, whether the theory existed or not, I'm not sure how different my life would be currently. On the other hand, if I were to spend a bit of time looking into the history of scientific development, I imagine that I could find examples were Darwin and subsequent scientists involved in studying evolution have influence or inspired other work that has had profound effects on current scientific methods and technologies.

 

I'm sorry I can't offer more specifics than that but I genuinely can't think of anything terribly specific and don't have the time to spend looking into it right now. How about you?

[steve]

Some of the arguments being made here are going too far, and contribute to the phenomena in science that is known as the Knowledge Filter bias. What happens when a theory becomes too prominent is that the researchers get tunnel vision and they end up discarding evidence against their theory out of hand, simply labeling it "anamolous evidence" and ignoring it or explaining it away with frivilous superficial arguments and excuses. In the end they end up ignoring almost as much "Anomalous Evidence" as they have evidence to support whatever particular theory they subscribe to.

Oh my goodness gracious - I nearly choked on my tongue.

Of all the people to make this accusation.

You cannot possibly tell me that you don't see the irony in this.

A creationist (or ID subscriber - whatever label you prefer) is telling scientists that they have tunnel vision and discard evidence out of hand, ignoring it or explaining it away with frivolous, superficial arguments and excuses?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen (it absolutely does) but you and your "scientists" and apologists and creationists and Intelligent Designers are the Grandmasters of this!

You guys try to discard and ignore an entire theory that has been subjected to the rigors of the scientific method for generations, let alone evidence.

Come on now!

You've got to be joking!

And I do apologize if I'm being hurtful but I just can't help myself.

[steve]

The only problem with peer-reviewed citations and such, is that it totally disallows for the person who is merely self-realized through their own inner work.

I think it's important to segregate the two. Both are important in my life but if we introduce empiric experiences and conclusions derived from inner work, we will compromise the integrity of the scientific method. They really are apples and oranges. I don't think it's necessary to value one over the other. Hopefully there will be more interaction and overlap of the two spheres as both fields continue to advance but not at the expense of the integrity of either. Each are too valuable for that, IMO. We do see more and more scientists participating in disciplines like meditation and so forth and I think we will see progressively more interaction of the two groups in the future - prickles and goo as Watts would say.

[steve]

Ralis, everything is based on emotion. Everyone is biased.

 

One thing I find to be true in my experience is that while religions are full of shit and religious people tend to be wacky and of lower intelligence, they are by now used to constant criticism, and they often are willing to admit to flaws when pressed (not everyone, but many are). On the other hand, I seriously don't meet many scientific materialists who can admit to flaws. Part of the reason for that is that the scientific community doesn't really receive true, genuine, valid criticism often enough. So many people in the scientific community really have a self-righteous attitude, like they can do no wrong. Sure, they'll admit to some minor and inconsequential personal fallibility but then they'll say the scientific process takes care of it. It's not a whole lot different from saying, we're all personally fallible but Jesus takes care of it anyway. Both are cop-outs.

Have you ever worked in a scientific environment? I have my whole life and I've never seen more criticism. Everything a scientist does is subjected to rigorous and uncompromising criticism on a regular basis to maintain integrity. It is the norm, not the exception. I've seen it in physics, chemistry, math, medicine (especially medicine) and so on. I'm not denying the flaws you are pointing out in scientists but I don't think it's due to a lack of criticism. Maybe they are subjected to so much criticism and have learned how to deal with it so well that many think they are beyond reproach.

 

PS Truly religious people, IME, are very intelligent and not so wacky. It's the folks who don't think for themselves and don't really look critically at reality who allow themselves to be hypnotized en masse by popular mythology that your first sentence applies to. IMO, those folks are not at all religious - just observant (or brainwashed). True religion is the uncompromising internal and personal search to understand the truth of our being - everything else is politics (paraphrased from Osho). It takes an intelligent and driven person to do that work. Although we could certainly call them stupid and wacky for wasting time trying to figure out the ineffable!

[manitou]

I think it's important to segregate the two. Both are important in my life but if we introduce empiric experiences and conclusions derived from inner work, we will compromise the integrity of the scientific method. They really are apples and oranges. I don't think it's necessary to value one over the other. Hopefully there will be more interaction and overlap of the two spheres as both fields continue to advance but not at the expense of the integrity of either. Each are too valuable for that, IMO. We do see more and more scientists participating in disciplines like meditation and so forth and I think we will see progressively more interaction of the two groups in the future - prickles and goo as Watts would say.

 

Maybe it is important to segregate the two as apples and oranges, but so often it appears that they sort of end up at the same place; the synthesis between spirituality and science does seem apparent, e.g. Einstein's relativity, time and space being curved, everything being relative to everything else; it just seems to point to the Oneness of time and space, and the illusion of linearity. I see science

as a path to measuring the Absolute, spirituality as a path to experiencing the Absolute.

[steve]

Maybe it is important to segregate the two as apples and oranges, but so often it appears that they sort of end up at the same place; the synthesis between spirituality and science does seem apparent, e.g. Einstein's relativity, time and space being curved, everything being relative to everything else; it just seems to point to the Oneness of time and space, and the illusion of linearity. I see science

as a path to measuring the Absolute, spirituality as a path to experiencing the Absolute.

I couldn't agree with you more. Two things led me to further inquiry in the "spiritual" realm back in the '80's - one was my martial arts interests and the other was my exposure to three books:

1. The Dancing Wu Li Masters - Gary Zukov

2. The Tao of Physics - Fritjof Kapra

3. Carlos Castaneda's ouevre

As a young "scientist" these books opened my eyes to the connection between the scientific and spiritual realms and the fact that both are simply using their own language and methods to help us experience and describe reality. And that both are nothing more than approximations with their attendant strengths and weaknesses.

 

Edit - somtimes I write nonsense and need to edit...

Edited May 26, 2011 by steve f

[ralis]

I couldn't agree with you more. Two things led me to further inquiry in the "spiritual" realm back in the '80's - one was my martial arts interests and the other was my exposure to three books:

1. The Dancing Wu Li Masters - Gary Zukov

2. The Tao of Physics - Fritjof Kapra

3. Carlos Castaneda's ouevre

As a young "scientist" these books opened my eyes to the connection between the scientific and spiritual realms and the fact that both are simply using their own language and methods to help us experience and describe reality. And that both are nothing more than approximations with their attendant strengths and weaknesses.

 

Edit - somtimes I write nonsense and need to edit...

 

What field are you working in?

[steve]

What field are you working in?

Health care

[ralis]

Health care

 

I really appreciate what you have posted in this thread!

[steve]

I really appreciate what you have posted in this thread!

Thank ralis - I don't know if you've read what I've written about approval in other threads but I certainly respond well to it even though I'm trying to kick the habit!

I value your opinions highly and greatly appreciate the acknowledment.

_/\_

[manitou]

I couldn't agree with you more. Two things led me to further inquiry in the "spiritual" realm back in the '80's - one was my martial arts interests and the other was my exposure to three books:

1. The Dancing Wu Li Masters - Gary Zukov

2. The Tao of Physics - Fritjof Kapra

3. Carlos Castaneda's ouevre

As a young "scientist" these books opened my eyes to the connection between the scientific and spiritual realms and the fact that both are simply using their own language and methods to help us experience and describe reality. And that both are nothing more than approximations with their attendant strengths and weaknesses.

 

Edit - somtimes I write nonsense and need to edit...

 

 

The Tao of Physics was quite an eye opener for me as well. Beautiful.

And the whole Castaneda thing.....oh dear. I love it.

 

You are one polite gentleman, Mr. F. Greatly appreciated by me, at least, on this forum.

[goldisheavy]

Oh my goodness gracious - I nearly choked on my tongue.

Of all the people to make this accusation.

You cannot possibly tell me that you don't see the irony in this.

A creationist (or ID subscriber - whatever label you prefer) is telling scientists that they have tunnel vision and discard evidence out of hand, ignoring it or explaining it away with frivolous, superficial arguments and excuses?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen (it absolutely does) but you and your "scientists" and apologists and creationists and Intelligent Designers are the Grandmasters of this!

You guys try to discard and ignore an entire theory that has been subjected to the rigors of the scientific method for generations, let alone evidence.

Come on now!

You've got to be joking!

And I do apologize if I'm being hurtful but I just can't help myself.

 

In my mind creationism is definitely wrong and macroevolution is possibly wrong. Microevolution is a fact.

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other. Both can be wrong. And yes, of course you don't want a hypocrite to be the messenger, who does?

 

But the truth of the message doesn't necessarily have a relation to the character of the messenger. So if you don't seek to emulate the messenger's personality, if you're content with the message itself, it shouldn't be a huge problem.

Edited May 26, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Immortal4life]

I like your perspective.

 

A lot of people don't want to distiguish between micro and macro evolution. They just brush it off and say "it's just the same thing on a different scale, there is no macro or micro evolution, it's all just evolution".

 

I can't just brush off this distinction though. People knew about breeding long before Darwin. Changes in Micro evolution can be observed and seen by anyone. The best example I can think of at the moment is a Wolf compared to a Chihuahua. Obviously genetic changes can cause change in structure and appearance.

 

However, a Chihuahua is still a dog. So I am certainly not convinced that genetic mutations, or breeding, combined with Natural Selection are an adequate explanation of all the different lifeforms on Earth, and how they all fit into the Circle of Life perfectly with each other. There has to be something more to it, something scientists have not identified.

[goldisheavy]

Have you ever worked in a scientific environment? I have my whole life and I've never seen more criticism.

 

That's like saying that no one receives more criticism than does a monk from an abbot of the monastery. It's just fluff. I am pointing to something deeper than superficial criticism. How about criticism of the scientific method itself? Or criticizing the standard accepted theory on some very fundamental grounds? Those things are rare. And they have to be rare, or the scientists wouldn't be able to get their shit together to even tie their shoelaces.

 

Everything a scientist does is subjected to rigorous and uncompromising criticism on a regular basis to maintain integrity.

 

Superficial criticism, yes. It's not a metaphysical criticism.

 

It is the norm, not the exception. I've seen it in physics, chemistry, math, medicine (especially medicine) and so on. I'm not denying the flaws you are pointing out in scientists but I don't think it's due to a lack of criticism. Maybe they are subjected to so much criticism and have learned how to deal with it so well that many think they are beyond reproach.

 

PS Truly religious people, IME, are very intelligent and not so wacky. It's the folks who don't think for themselves and don't really look critically at reality who allow themselves to be hypnotized en masse by popular mythology that your first sentence applies to. IMO, those folks are not at all religious - just observant (or brainwashed). True religion is the uncompromising internal and personal search to understand the truth of our being - everything else is politics (paraphrased from Osho). It takes an intelligent and driven person to do that work. Although we could certainly call them stupid and wacky for wasting time trying to figure out the ineffable!

 

Sorry, Steve, I think you're just ignoring the real issues here and proving my point by doing so.

 

Paradigm shifts are rare in science for a reason.

 

P.S.: Don't confuse religious with spiritual.

Edited May 26, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

I like your perspective.

 

A lot of people don't want to distiguish between micro and macro evolution. They just brush it off and say "it's just the same thing on a different scale, there is no macro or micro evolution, it's all just evolution".

 

I can't just brush off this distinction though. People knew about breeding long before Darwin. Changes in Micro evolution can be observed and seen by anyone. The best example I can think of at the moment is a Wolf compared to a Chihuahua. Obviously genetic changes can cause change in structure and appearance.

 

However, a Chihuahua is still a dog. So I am certainly not convinced that genetic mutations, or breeding, combined with Natural Selection are an adequate explanation of all the different lifeforms on Earth, and how they all fit into the Circle of Life perfectly with each other. There has to be something more to it, something scientists have not identified.

 

I think your objections are reasonable, but people are dogmatic.

 

Notice I asked Steve to give me a story or two from his life that demonstrates the value of macroevolution as a scientific theory? Notice the thundering silence that followed? Why is that? I know why. But I won't say it. I want people to learn to be honest with themselves, especially Steve, who is having troubles, imo.

[steve]

The Tao of Physics was quite an eye opener for me as well. Beautiful.

And the whole Castaneda thing.....oh dear. I love it.

 

You are one polite gentleman, Mr. F. Greatly appreciated by me, at least, on this forum.

[removes hat while bowing deeply] It is truly a pleasure to have made your acquaintance on this forum as well, my dear.

[steve]

In my mind creationism is definitely wrong and macroevolution is possibly wrong. Microevolution is a fact.

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other. Both can be wrong. And yes, of course you don't want a hypocrite to be the messenger, who does?

 

But the truth of the message doesn't necessarily have a relation to the character of the messenger. So if you don't seek to emulate the messenger's personality, if you're content with the message itself, it shouldn't be a huge problem.

Well said - I'm more concerned with the method of science than the conclusions in most cases.

Conclusions come and go, theories change and are replaced by new ones.

The method makes it all possible.

I'll freely admit that I don't know all that much about evolutionary theory and specific evidence and experimentation but I respect and have confidence in the method.

I've looked pretty carefully at the existing ID evidence and methods.

The evidence is conjecture and the methods are gratuitous.

 

It puts me in mind of a great book - The Question to Life's Answers by Steven Harrison.

In it he talks about the fact that questions are important, answers not so much.

Because the questions keep us thinking, working, creating, and so on.

The answer is dead - "I know that, next"

[steve]

That's like saying that no one receives more criticism than does a monk from an abbot of the monastery. It's just fluff. I am pointing to something deeper than superficial criticism. How about criticism of the scientific method itself? Or criticizing the standard accepted theory on some very fundamental grounds? Those things are rare. And they have to be rare, or the scientists wouldn't be able to get their shit together to even tie their shoelaces.

Interesting - do you think the criticism a Zen monk receives from his abbott is fluff?

 

Please offer criticism for the scientific method if you feel so inclined. I am very comfortable with it.

 

I disagree with you - I see constant and meaningful criticism among scientists of results and methods.

Scientists like nothing more than to criticize each other (especially competing groups).

On the other hand, of course everyone gets attached to their methods and paradigms and change is difficult.

 

 

Sorry, Steve, I think you're just ignoring the real issues here and proving my point by doing so.

 

Paradigm shifts are rare in science for a reason.

 

P.S.: Don't confuse religious with spiritual.

I don't follow you regarding ignoring real issues.

 

The scientific paradigm is very powerful and consistent therefore its been very slow to change.

What about other paradigms? Buddhist, Christian, Daoist, Philosophical, Social - do they change much?

I think by their very nature, paradigms are slow to change.

 

PS Please clarify your definition of religious vs spiritual. I equate the two. I just don't consider followers of ritual and doctrine of religious institutions as religious people, any more than I consider someone who reads Scientific American to necessarily be a serious scientist. It boils down to a matter of semantics. We can define religious and spiritual as we see fit. They're just words. My post defined my view of religious.

[steve]

I think your objections are reasonable, but people are dogmatic.

 

Notice I asked Steve to give me a story or two from his life that demonstrates the value of macroevolution as a scientific theory? Notice the thundering silence that followed? Why is that? I know why. But I won't say it. I want people to learn to be honest with themselves, especially Steve, who is having troubles, imo.

I genuinely appreciate your concern, Gold.

Thank you

 

Edited for the following -

 

I thought I'd offer a poem to my new favorite master baiter -

 

'Tis said we dislike in others in what in ourselves we do see

And though with that saying just like all other sayings not everyone does agree

That we can see our own worst traits in others does make some sense to me

They become the reflective mirrors of our negativity

In our dislike of others we mostly tend to be discreet

But we cannot like everybody that we get to know or meet

Are we that any different to the little girl or boy

Amongst their many playthings they have one favourite toy

For to like everybody equally one would need to be a saint

And very few if anyone who are completely free of taint

To like some better than others is quite a natural thing

And the praises of those that we like we find easy to sing

And that we dislike in others what in ourselves we see

Is a saying that has some truth in it or so 'twould seem to me.

 

Francis Duggan

Edited May 27, 2011 by steve f

[goldisheavy]

Interesting - do you think the criticism a Zen monk receives from his abbott is fluff?

 

Yes and no.

 

Yes it is fluff because most Zen masters are pussies (speaking from some personal experience, as I've seen them online and wasn't impressed). I would say that out of 100 people who claim to be Zen masters only about 1 really is. I'm including people with the denpo/inka into this. I've personally met some Zen masters online whom I've considered idiots, who had significant following of students, whom I considered lost and mislead dittoheads. It was a devastating sight to observe. So why would people follow these folks? It's thanks to convention. It's because of denpo/inka. They have a formal transmission, so that makes it OK to follow them.

 

No, it is not fluff because once in a while there is a Zen master who can challenge you to the very core of your being. This kind of challenge is not what the scientist do to one another or like I said, they'd not be able to tie their shoelaces and get on with work.

 

Please offer criticism for the scientific method if you feel so inclined. I am very comfortable with it.

 

I will not do so right now.

 

I disagree with you - I see constant and meaningful criticism among scientists of results and methods.

 

But never the scientific method. See, Steve, you don't quite get it. When I say the religious people are criticized, I mean the core of the religious worldview is criticized. God. Theology. The fundamental underpinnings are what's criticized. So the religious people are used to deep and profound criticism. As a result, religious people tend to have a degree of humility that's completely absent in science. I don't mean humility in a conventional sense. I mean it in a philosophic sense.

 

The scientists are not used to serious, deep, profound and sustained challenge of their very fundamentals, such as materialism, scientific method and the sacred basic laws like the conservation of energy principle. And by sacred I don't mean it in a superficial sense. I know the scientists don't build shrines to the conservation of energy principle. So please let's not warp my words.

 

Scientists like nothing more than to criticize each other (especially competing groups).

 

Yes, friendly and shallow criticism that stays comfortably within the bounds of the scientific dogma. It's the same way Zen students criticize each other, or the same way Tai-chi students criticize each other's form, etc... It's all shallow and non-metaphysical criticism.

 

On the other hand, of course everyone gets attached to their methods and paradigms and change is difficult.

 

 

 

I don't follow you regarding ignoring real issues.

 

The scientific paradigm is very powerful and consistent therefore its been very slow to change.

 

That isn't the point. Maybe the scientific paradigm is absolutely the best. If anything this just proves my point. When you think your stuff is the best, or very powerful, you naturally have no reason to exercise philosophic modesty. It just makes no sense to be small about something that you truly and sincerely believe is huge.

 

What about other paradigms? Buddhist, Christian, Daoist, Philosophical, Social - do they change much?

I think by their very nature, paradigms are slow to change.

 

Yes. Faster change isn't my goal. Honesty is. It's when you say, "yes, I assume my method rocks, I don't question it much, or at all, and yes, that's my dogma." That's honesty.

 

PS Please clarify your definition of religious vs spiritual. I equate the two.

 

I see a huge difference between the two. Someone is religious when that someone is part of an organized group. That group prizes ritual and dogma above all else. The group prizes group conformity. Being religious is a formal matter. You can produce some kind of identification or proof. For example, you can demonstrate financial records indicating consistent tithing, documents indicating baptism and other ceremonies, transmission documents, formal clothing and paraphernalia, such as robes and a bowl and so on, ritualistic scarring, such as a circumcised penis and others. Perhaps one or two such things is not enough evidence, but put a few of these together and you get the preponderance of evidence that proves religiosity.

 

And you can be religious withing being the slightest bit spiritual. In other words, you can attend the rituals and follow all the standards of religion without having spiritual experience, without having spiritual beliefs of any kind, and so on.

 

To be spiritual above all else means to be non-dogmatic. Spiritual people are open-minded, and dogma indicates a closed mind. Spiritual people often have experiences which can be classified as spiritual. Spiritual people are often genuinely thoughtful and curious, rather than dogmatic. Spiritual people leave no stone unturned when searching for the truth. Spiritual people by their very nature are not likely to belong to a religion, considering that religion has mind-numbing and spirit-dullifying effects. Spiritual people do not insist on group affiliation and they also do not insist on conformity. Conformity is either a very low value or even a non-value to the spiritual person. Rituals are seen as either useless or as personal in meaning. This means the rituals can be created by oneself, if needed, without dogmatically copying them from elsewhere. The meaning is what's important, not the outer shell.

 

Spiritual people look into the heart of the matter whereas religious people are caught up in the dog and pony show, the display, the social jockeying game, social positioning, group jockeying, etc... All kinds of bullshit that spiritual people actually detest and warn about.

Edited May 27, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

I genuinely appreciate your concern, Gold.

Thank you

 

So, will you answer my question? You know which one. The one you've been silent about so far.