All Activity

Both are unwelcomed.

Please don't resort to strawman fallacies. It was your claims that the bias permeated all of science that were shot down by several posters. At times, you've admitted it's not a universal phenomenon, but then you keep going back to a subjective view, and point out where bias has happened. This is why we keep going around in circles about this. Bias in science exists, but it's not automatic, it's not widespread, and it's not bias to accept explanations that work well for us.

Who would you choose to populate the jury?

Where is the evidence shooting down my claim of biasness in science? I have at least brought observation to the table, but the other side has not even done that. Show me the evidence that there is no bias towards a certain worldview? If I say idealism at a science conference, will I be as warmly welcomed as if I say materialism? I agree with you that evidence is scarce,,,,on both sides. And I am continuing this discussion only because I am being peppered with posts. And I also believe that our discussion, notwithstanding its lack of evidence, is very beneficial to all. If you ask me to stop, then I will do so. I don’t have that much skin in the game on this one. Laughed again😊 Its not religion, but maybe, just maybe spirituality. Again, the jury is still out on this one.

Don't make me break out the parrot sketch... "If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies." Your bias is religious in nature, IOW you believe in what you think; ironic when you think about it... 🙄

1- Dawkins does not state that subjectivity does not exist (sorry for the two negatives in the sentence), but that subjectivity operates like a "fog" that distorts objective reality. He states that "now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of objective truth". As if objectivity was in danger and that those defending 'objectivity" are only the good gals and guys. Sounds like another crusade. 2- And I say that science can try with at least indirect quantifiable evidence. It will not probably get to the core of the matter, but we will at least be able to determine its confine, which is a start. 3- Agree that I am veering a bit off course when I bring it back to consciousness, but it is the best example that I have of bias towards one approach in comparison to another. One is being shot down before it even hits the tarmac. 4- Indeed it is very-very successful; that's not the point; the point is that it went beyond it's privileged position and strongly inferred what the worldview should be.. 5- I am sayiing that there is an overarching bias in science and that this is, its preference for a specific worldview. That is why I contend that it is interdisciplinary. 6- Agree that it is not failiure overall ; neuroscience tells us much about the brain, but not so much about mind. And more knowledge about mind would help us understand the mind, and maybe our place in the universe. 7- Never said that it stopped science from progressing. Where would we be without science ? I contend not very far from where we were before it.

It's because of the way you've set up the premise. There should be a way to define the type of bias you're describing so it can be assessed, but you haven't pinned it down for us. It's always present, you claim, but then you can't point to a trend. It affects all of science, you claim, but you can't support that, yet you claim it anyway. Your claims of widespread bias get shot down by evidence, yet you persist in claiming the bias exists. Someone said it many pages ago. Claiming widespread bias in science after all the posts asking for evidence shows that you're biased towards this argument. You can't believe bias isn't affecting science in a way that calls its conclusions into question, and you can't admit it's not the problem you've claimed.

Don't know why, but I laughed upon reading your parrot line😊 I have many reasons for being biased on bias in science and on consciousness. I will stop talking about bias in science when it goes away, and trust me, it will never go away. And I will stop talking of my bias in the way that consciousness operates, when there will be clarity in how two pounds or so of matter creates mind.

Dawkins does not refute what? We’re talking about subjectivity, so he’s equating subjectivity with itself? Science can only study that which can be studied with the methods of science. It doesn’t study metaphysics because it can’t. You keep steering this back to consciousness, which is a tiny, tiny slice of science, and pretending this issue is representative. It’s not. It’s been pretty successful at it. IOW, your issue is with one topic, and have not shown this concern applies to the rest of science. Lack of success in one area does not mean the endeavor has failed overall. You act as if this issue is stopping all of science from progressing, which is ludicrous.

What you're missing is that recognition of your own biases, is just step one; it's a step you have yet to take. Just saying "I am biased" can be said by a parrot. 😉

The second day? ...yep, you're right!... Our new Trump Bibles sure come in Handy!

What I don't get is how are we going round in circles chasing our tails. If there was no bias in science, no one would be interested in the matter, and if you look at the number of posts, there seems to be interest. To me, getting at least some on this forum to accept that its man-made and that we need to incessantly keep it in check is a step forward. And I again strongly reiterate that we are all bias, including me. Baked in the human-pie.

Not smart enough to understand this. You're using it wrong, it's desighned to 'stop' us going round in circles chasing our tails.

In this example, a smooth curve appears not smooth as one zooms out. The opposite is also possible, i.e., a rugged curve appears smooth as one zooms out.

1- So, Richard Dawkins does not refute, but equates it to the "fog" of subjectivity. Daniel Dennet does not deny it either, but says it's an illusion fabricated by the brain. Sam Harris does not deny subjectivity and does not seem to put any caveats on it. As for Christopher Hitchens, he was all into atheism and I could not find anything on subjectivity coming out of him. 2-So, science does not refuse to investigate the metaphysical? Science has no preferred leaning towards materialism? And it has definitely resolved the living and consciousness? Show me the evidence! 3- Science holds a priviledge postion in western societies and uses this leverage very efficiently. It did set up the boudaries of what it can investigate and then bled through the boundaries by being strongly suggestive of how the world should be viewed through science. 4- No impact on identifying rocks and minerals, but the mind will be doing it through the brain, rather than the brain doing it itself. Neuroscience is starting to show evidence that I am using in my posts. I did takl about Wilder Penfield, did I not and his live experiences on humans. I did talk about Paul Pietsch and his shuffle brain experiences. etc. 5- Neuroscience and science have been trying to crack the mind from brain nut for centuries and have not done so. After trying for so long, it might be time to try something different that is supported by incomplete, but tantalizing partial evidence. 6- Nope, it will not. But maybe some equations might have to be revisited, but too early to tell as we don't know at this point what mind really is. 1- If it quacks and walks like a duck, its a duck. 2- "Measurable" was the word being used in posts, but I agree that quantifiable is better. 3- Bias is unevenly distributed, but found in all fields. As for consciousness, finding out what it really is would unlock locked doors. Agree with you on this matter. I also am interested in your likes and dislikes 😊

The argument that always creeps in is that, looks (and is) smooth enough, while, doesn't so much, although it's equally smooth. It's just that the curvature at the corners is enormous as compared to scale 1. These are called squircles, btw, and they're fascinating.

I always use pressing Ctrl+hyperlink, as suggested by Swansont. Fast.

I have an option for it in the Firefox settings.. about:preferences tab "Open links in tabs instead of new windows"

Space-time geometry is fine with singularities, too. Take a triangle. It is a perfect geometric shape in spite of having three singularities.

Textbook geometry might be fine with singularities, but I don't think space-time geometry is. My opinion; take it for what it's worth.

OK. I like all the older ones up to and including Voyager, and I like Strange New Worlds. I hate everything in between. I didn't know you wanted me to be specific, or that anyone was that interested in my likes and dislikes.

Right. But when this happens what fails is GR together with its framework, differential geometry. Not geometry. Geometry is fine with such singularities. Differential geometry has a problem.

As I said It may, however, have been global, as local would require a specific field configuration, not a homogeneous isotropic energy distribution. Exactly. As happens when geometric curvature goes to infinite at a singularity.

This is incorrect. GR requires geometry with certain smoothness. It fails if the geometry is not sufficiently smooth.

In a world where Pearl Jam gets played on the oldies station and episodes of Discovery and Picard are themselves already a few years old, ST Next Generation episodes ARE the older ones