charles brough

I think everyone, it they tried, could come up with an original saying. I hit upon this one this year:

"There are no accidents, just people taking too much risk."

I have not yet been able to originate another.

How about it everyone?

Big Bang.

 

1. CMBR and in particular the power spectrum.
2. Expansion of the Universe i.e. Hubble's Law.
3. Abundances of the light elements.

 

and other things.

 

The main point is that any "sensible" theory should make quite specific predictions that can be tested against nature.

Yes, the accuracy of a theory can be best judged by its ability to be tested from predictions based on it. No theory is completely accurate, totally complete, or "the Truth" in being the abstract, final knowledge because there is no such thing.

The word "theory" isn't very satisfactory. In popular usage, it sort of suggests, a thing that someone's thought up, just as a conjecture, but is a bit doubtful. Of course that's why Creationists like to refer to the "Theory" of Evolution. It makes Evolution sound dodgy.

 

Hard to think of a one-word substitute though. "Hypothesis" sounds even less solid. Maybe we should use a phrase such as "Best Explanation that Fits the Facts"? But that's too long-winded.

To put it simply and accurately, the meaning of "theory" is "the currently most accurate understanding of . . . . " If there is more than one theory best purporting to explain the same phenomenon, it is that there is more than one competing for the satus of being "the currently most accurate."

I agree that Fundamentalists like to say "evolution is only a theory." They think in ancient terms of black/white, yes/no, good/evil in which everything is either true or false---when, actually, nothing is totally accurate and totally understandable, especially ancient scriptures. . .

The evolutionary function of religion is to prove people with a sense of community. That is, with common beliefs, it is easier for them to live and work together for common goals. It also provides something to agree on in regard to morals. All that has nothing to do with insanity.

Insanity it is when an individual has such mental/emotional problems as to be disabled or a threat to themselves or to others. But even with that, there are exceptions. For example, a person can be paranoid without ever doing any harm to others, but it all has nothing to do with religion.

Some people say religious fundamentalists are insane because their beliefs are hundreds if not thousands of years behind the times and beyond the reach of science, but such too-old beliefs are not insane nor make a person insane. Making the connection as you have in this post is merely a surrepticious attack on the beliefs of others.

Wow! What a list of restrictions! Some like to give big answers and others are more to the point. Its really up to you to read and take seriously the kind of responses that appeal to you.

"The Big Bang" is the best explanation of what little we really know about the universe. It is consistent with what we know so far about physics, astronomy, etc.

The theory of Evolution is how to explain what has been observed over and over again. In other words, evolution is fact. We know it has occured because we see it operate in the biology lab, in the Earth record, and among plants. It is only how it occurs that is theory.

If you want a science explanation, that's it. If you want a religious one, go to the Ancient Scriptures of any of the world's old religions.

The answers posted so far deal with the scientific method and, I suggest, do not deal with the question.

"Facts" are what observervers have observed; "theory" is how scientists explain it. Gravity is a fact, for example, but how it works is fraught with problems and is theory. Evolution is a fact because it is observed over and over again in the paleonthological record. How it occurs is theory and like all theory, should and so far has constantly become more accurate.

Religious fundamentalists are unaware of such a distinciton because they are used to seeing all that we need to know being set forth in ancient documents. So, they tend to think only in terms of "true" or "false," and therefore that if theory is not "truth," it is "wrong" and inferior to the Scriptures.

Hello, Friends! i am for the first time on this forum and i would like to offer you one new topic. Sociology - it is very useful in our life and in our science practice. can you advice me the most interestig and useful books on sociology?

At the moment i have found interesting book:

http://old.reslib.co...ciology__Vol__2_

 

this library contents a lot of rare scientific literature...but i am interested in the books on sociology "from the very beginning" and in some spheres of sociology - for example, sociology of the science...thank you!!

What do you mean by the "sociology of the science..."? What science? Anyway, sociology is the study of groups, not sciences. If you are interested in the nature, origin, history, etc. of science, why not ask your librarian? And if you are interested in societies and their civilizations rather than groups, sociology is not for you.

Will science ever come to and end? or will it continue infinately?

 

. . . in my opinion, the "information technology" age has really not been very revolutionary compared to many of the industrial advancements before (electricity and the automotive engine). The scientific world has been relatively stagnant since 1970. The progress of Science also stalled in the historical period between 500 AD to 1000 AD.

 

The progress of science is not always a continuous steady stream of advances. Science grows in sudden clusters of small discoveries, or in great leaps and bounds of understanding.

People think of scientists as "seeking truth.." but that infers that the "truth" can be achieved even though there is no final and total knowledge in our infinite world. All we do is make our understanding of ourselves and the rest of the universe as accurate as we can. And since we can never know completely everything about anything, we will always need science.

But as the above post indicates, there have been periods when our understanding of the world and ourselves receeded rather than becoming more accurate. And as the post also indicates, it is slowing down in our Western civilization. This is not unusdual; it has characterized the decline of every past civilization.

It is not that the need for science lessens but that the society and its civilization comes to experience such inner social, political and economic problems that people turn back to the old moral belief system they had in earlier times, and that comes at the cost of the advances they had made in science and technology. This is a pattern that has repeated itself over and over and can be considered fundamental to the life cycle of mainstream societies and their civilizations.

I have to agree with Phi for All, and it becomes very pointless to suggest there should be some kind of battle between science and religion to see which side "wins." That attitude is often held by people who are encouraging scientism, not just science, and within this group are people I suspect who want to use science in whatever way possible, though not explicitly to prove God doesn't exist, to weaken the argument in favor of the existence of God as much as scientific methods will allow. They are putting out the kind of research you see in a review I wrote of a study called "Divine intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God." This research tried to suggest that the intuition associated with sloppy, first impression type of thinking, i.e., the type that isn't likely to get you the correct answer to a tricky math problem, is the same thinking pattern that people use when they report they believe in God. But these researchers don't even say it like this. They say they have the evidence to show that intuitive thinking is a cause for belief in God itself. It's really outrageous, and I certainly hope it's not some new trend in psychology. You can read why I find this an abuse of scientific methods at the critique I wrote on the study here: http://scientismtime...tive-style.html or here: http://scientismtime...in-god/#respond

 

And I'll say this too, there is nothing "close-minded" about thinking critically about what the psychology of faith and science may have to say about God, religions, or spirituality. It isn't a "war" of science vs. religion. It's about understanding the limitations that a scientific approach has when it comes to understanding faith despite the cultural values that often try to replace God with science.

I agree. The way I see it is that "the battled between them" is grossly exaggerated. For several centuries, Christianity has been compromised enough to co-exist with science in the thinking of most people because it has been compromised. That began with the Age of Enlightenment. During the following many generations, most people became "liberal Christians" who accepted the more general concepts of the old faith but no longer personally considered all of it "the Exact world of God" (i.e.,"the Truth").

But science compromised itself also. . . not the physical sciences but in the social sciences. Social scientists do follow the scientific method and do gather accurate data, but how it is interpreted is in the hands of social theorists. Their vague, general consensus is the interpretation of the social science data that is taught in all our schools all the way up to and through the universities. It molds secular doctrines in a way that is neither offensive nor contradictory to not just Christianity but to, as well, all the other mainline religions in the world.

So, both science and religion get along well enough that the whole world can and largely has been secularized even as the old faiths survive. Without both their compromising, the "Global Community of Nations" and "the Global Economy" would be impossible.

I feel like to really tackle this, we have to separate the concepts of morals/values from the concept of ideology. In my mind, they are two different things. Everyone has morals and values, which I loosely think of as rules that govern interactions between people. Ideology is a belief that, not only are a certain set of morals and values absolutely correct, but that there is only one system which will allow us to live in a moral and ethical way. For example, I value the concept that every human should have equal opportunity to live a free life. That doesn't mean I believe everyone is 'equal". Moreover, it doesn't mean I ascribe to a particular ideology that tells us how our institutions should be set up so that we have equality. My opinions on the latter are highly influenced by evidence: what works and what doesn't?

 

So, I guess I'm saying that I don't necessarily believe that a secular system is completely ideological. Yes, there are a set of morals and values inherent in a secular system, but it's possible for to change the institutional structure surrounding these morals and values if evidence suggests the institutional structure is inadequate. And indeed, that seems to happen.

 

On a related note, I'm also confused as to how you could have a non-secular system that wasn't ideological.

I note your reasoning. In my work on social evolution ("The Last Civilization"), I had to give all important terms only one specific meaning as is done in all the "hard" sciences. Since we evolved as small group primates and need ideology to bring us a sense of community when we formed into larger groups, (and now into nations and "societies" i.e., groups of nations bonded together by a common religion such as Islam), the nature of what it takes to bond us together becomes important. My functional use of terms is not used in rationalized social theory. I try to avoid the term for old-ideology, "religiion" because what it is used to mean is vague and confuses the subject.

Thus, I use the term "ideology" as a general term for everything people believe since all is belief and there is no absolute knowledge. We are actually, instead, seeking a more accurate picture (or ideology) of ourselves and the world around us. That's what science does. However, since some ideologies last for thousands of years, I had to find out what has enabled them to do that. I finally concluded that they were skilled in explaining to the faithful "the meaning of life" by providing some sort of answers to meaning-of-life questions. Thus, belief systems that differ on the main explanation tend to bind people into seperate societies. Examples are Christendom (the West), Islam and East Asian Marxism. In other words, all ideologies that bind people into societies that occupy space on the planet (we are territiorial beings) are the same type of ideology. What the public calls "religion" is only old and hence less accurate such systems.

The point is that Secular Humanism is an ideology of ideals such as liberty, individualism, rights, etc. that gradually formed in the last five hundred years. All the great civilizations have had a secular age. The Roman one was Hellenistic. Hindu and Chinese ones were the original Buddhist. And characteristic of secular ideologies is that they spring from and adapt to the religion-society from which they came. They tend to refine the old faith's moral standards, but the whole secular ideology depends upon the underlying older faith to survive. It can never replace them.

I agree with you that we have an innate social-behavioral nature. Ideologies only shape or "refine" it. Your concept of what is central to the heart of morals being secular rights is an example of the way our social moral nature is shaped by our secular humanist ideology.

One poster earlier wrongly concluded that I was against the secular and hence must believe in the old myths and superstition. I only see this as a subject that needs objective clearity in order to tell really what is going on and what lies ahead. It is not personal with me. I do not think a lot differently. There is no other available ideology superior to Secular Humanism now.

Funny, I see the prevalent ideology in popular culture as, "only pretty and sexy women matter", not as "women should act like men". How sure are you that the act of men protecting women is innate (i.e. coded in the genes), and not a learned response to societal cues? Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

:D

Seriously, however, a feeling that is natural to men is not the ideal and ideology that has caused us to bring forth more women's rights.

Why did we go to war in Islam and go over there to fight and risk death as well as waste our resources if it was not to protect our women and children? Alpha male chimps agrssively patrol their territory to guard it. It is of little importance whether they find the genes or epigentic configuration that is responsible for our primate, even mammal, nature. Its widespread existence is a valid generalization and should be referred to as an "instinct" with the proviso that all instinct in higher mammals is subject to some "cultural" (ideological) influence and even modification.

It might be useful if you described which types of equality you value and which you don't. This website might help.

The reference is a good one! What could I add to that? My personal feelings are not at issue anyway. What I hoped to do with this thread was to get across the idea that our secular system is an ideology and that, like all ideologies, it has a limited life span. As it has often been stated here by the rest, what is important is a limited number of rights and to treat all individuals with consideration. I personally agree. On the other hand, I also recognize, for example, why women have asserted themselves and gained more influence in our society. It is something that has developed in all previous civilizations when they become ideologically too divided. The same thing can be observed in other primates. The women become assertive when the group and its leadership become weak and lead to a feeling of insecurity in them because of their maternal concern for the welfare of the young.

So, we idealize it with the Bill of Rights and support it. However, being a response to stress, it is not an ideal state when prolonged. It is not natural to be instituionalized into our ideology. When there are movies about violent women heroines, it is as if we encourage women to take over the male role and leads us in the direction of women in army combat positions. What is normal is for men to protect women, not the other way around. To distort our innate drives by ideology like this adds increasing stress to society and that, in turn, causes a rise in medical problems and an ever more expensive medical burden.

Like all subjects in science, this is a science subject and my personal feelings are not an issue. There are many more examples in which the cause can be explained and the danger it leads to when and if it goes beyond basic human nature. I explain them in "The Last Civilization."

brough

So you're asking: should we assume that all people have equal rights? History suggests the danger innot doing so is that it leads to sub-populations dehumanising other sub-populations, often with rather nasty consequences. So whether it actually makes us equal or not, the assumption at least limits some of the worst stuff.

Oh, I agree totally. What I think is that we have emphasized it for so long that it has become extreme and distorted and is leading to absurdly impractical changes in our society. Humanism can be over-done. Everything is capable of being carried to extreme. Yet if I be specific on these points, I seem cruel and/bigoted because even skeptics are ruled by their secullar ideology.

What I meant was, users who apply DSMO topically experience a taste of garlic in their mouth, implying the substance is absorbed into body and the taste receptors are triggered by it causing that taste sensation.

No, I never noticed, but then I only use it on my wrist so that is not a large area. But my joint relief and your report of an aftertaste rather well confirms that it does penetrate. It sure is popular as a linamint for horses and is commonly used professionally for them. It is no advertise-hyped product. . .

Charles

 

Do you experience a garlicky taste in your mouth sometime after using it? I read this can be a symptom of DSMO use. If so there's your answer.

 

Try a strong nicotine patch on your arm...that will give you an answer as well...I guarantee it, it nearly made me sick as I got ones too strong for me.

 

Also, If it didn't work millions of people wouldn't snort illicit substances up their nose would they?

Well, up the nose is different. There you are talking about mucous membrane there and that is much more permeable. I never took DSMO by mouth. I have a roll-on which I use only occassionally. It feels only like sticky water on the skin but does relieve joint arthritis under it.

Who, where, what type of equality, and in which society. Who's "We"? This is an international forum We have people from quite a diverse range of the world... you should be a bit more specific.

 

Also, your question is very vague. What do you mean "are we equal?" in what? Obviously, we're not "all" equal biologically and there isn't any debate on it, either***. Are we socially equal? Debatable; if you ask this from a political point of view, you'd probably get a resounding "no", but with little agreement as to where,exactly, this inequality lies.

 

I think you should be more specific. Is this a philosophical question about equality in general and what it means, or is this something more specific?

 

~mooey

 

*** NOTE: Before you go all up in arms, ScienceForum readers, I just re-read myself and noticed this might come off differently than what I meant. This "biological inequality" I speak of has nothing to do with race; I was refering to the biological differences between men and women. Please don't take my words out of context also, sorry it might sound different than what I meant. Must clarify.

thanks for raising the question. I am referring to the US Consitution and the Bill of Rights which are main features of the Secular ideology that the US has been spreading all over the globe.

In the US, the dogma of everyone is equal and has "an inalienal right" to equal justice, etc. So, we make the point here that the individual, sexes, the races, cultures, nations, religions, etc. are all equal. We are encouraged to "praise diversity" so that anything else is considered to be "politically incorrect."

Are we equal? What is equal to something else, anything? Or is eveything different or of unequal worth, value or importance?

Are we endowed with this equality value? If so, what is it?

Did you just put the little R by the brand Bengay?*lol* Too funny

Yeah, the registered trademark . . . Its not something on my keyboard. About asprin, I believe I've read that it affects the digestive system no matter how it is introducted into the body.

I do use DSMO once in a while. It was better known for human use some years back. I bought mine at a sporting goods store.

The actual layer of skin that acts as a "barrier" to chemicals is about as thin as the plastic film used to wrap food with.

There are plenty of cases of things that diffuse through it.

Here's some work on toxicity of relatively large chemicals getting through it

http://occmed.oxford...t/57/6/391.full

 

The process is reliable enough to be used quite widely in medicine

http://en.wikipedia....ansdermal_patch

If your dermatologist isn't aware of this sort of thing then he shouldn't be working in health care

Thanks for this info. The dermatologist I contacted was through one of the internet services that provide "expert" medical help to answer your questions. I actually paid $35 to join the service! I used it only once.

"What I was reallty trying to find out is whether or not anything really penetrates the skin and reaches painful joints or muscles."yes.

I don't disagree with you; it is just that I earlier got an answer from a licensed dermatilogist that chemicals did not breach the skin barrier. I was not satisfied with the answer so I asked here. However, a chemist is not necessarily as astute in physology as a physican. There is that difference between organic and inorganic chemistry for one thing. So, I only ask if you can provide more than just a "yes" answer.

Arnica Montana, Capsaicin, Menthol ... there are a number of valid products which help, up to an extent, but these three are among the best OTC I've used. Depends on the severity of the trauma.

What I was reallty trying to find out is whether or not anything really penetrates the skin and reaches painful joints or muscles. It seems to me skin is a barrier that ointments and sprays cannot penetrate.

I just picked up a pamphlet promoting a spray that claims to bring muscle-pain relief. I believe DSMO may penetrate the skin and possibly even acetone, but even that is questionable to me.

Any good info?

How can the way we think not be related to neuroscience?

Good question! It all has to involve neuroscience, but brain physiology alone has not been explaining our social instinct repertoire.

We don't really need evolution for group formation, per se. Chance alone is sufficient to explain aggregation. Keep in mind, individual drops of oil will aggregate spontaneously into a micelle if they happen to bump into each other, and they have no brain, or capacity to evolve at all. Additionally, groups may form for external reasons where the individual members don't really benefit at all, and would "prefer", if given a choice, not to be in a group at all. A single tree in a forest is an example of this. (Please keep in mind, I'm not a plant biologist.) The forest has sprung up due to a combination of appropriate growing conditions and how far seed gets spread. Competing for soil space and sunlight doesn't benefit a tree, however. The group appears in this case to exist as a detriment to its members. If it's (evolution, now) needed at all, it's needed for retention of group. What's the benefit of remaining in a group?

 

The near-necessity of group living for anything that reproduces sexually is obvious: it requires a willing partner (or third party, with plants) of the opposite sex in order to exist. Furthermore, that means that there needs to be exposure to the opposite sex at appropriate times. Depending on the frequency of ovulation that exposure may just be annually, or it may be constant. If the offspring are dependent upon the parent, need for a nuclear group (at least) is immediate. But in general, weakness in an individual unit, or reliance upon a group to survive is sufficient to explain group existence. Emergent properties of group existence are sufficient to explain the retention of a group, even if it formed by chance alone, and even if reliance doesn't factor into the equation.

 

I'm not sure it makes sense to view these broad things in terms of evolution, when chance is sufficient to explain their occurrence and immediate benefit is present to sustain it. And, I hate to say it, but you'll need to define what you're willing to consider as a group if you want to think about this further.

I find it hard to figure it is chance that causes amoeba to swarm together and form slugs that

move out of the water to land and form into upright stalks which, when brushed by passing animals, enable amoebas to reach other bodies of water. Jelly fish are composite animals made up of groups of different animal organisms. They do not do this by choice but because it is innate or instinctive and doesn't that mean it had to evolve that way?

Well, is it ? I read this article 2 months ago (I'm sure someone has read it here):

http://www.arachnoid...logy/index.html If not then I'll go over the main point the author tries to make:

 

He says that psychology ISN'T a science because it isn't a strict discipline as all the other sciences such as Biology, Chemistry and Physics. He goes on to say that different types of mental illnesses are being 'founded' by the hundreds every year and this number is expotentially growing and so soon

"no behaviour will be normal."

 

He says that there is ethical restrictions on experimenting on humans (because there is) preventing proper analysis of psychology/psychological methods.

 

Even if we could cut up humans and their brains, we don't even fully understand the brain so we wouldn't even know what were're looking for.

There is no way of quantifying this. There is just too much variability (aka. 50:50) and not enough science (100%). He actually relates psychology to religion as a belief system.

 

I think its quite a good article. I'm still pretty confused on the area.

What do you all think? Discuss.

We do not fully understand the brain but we do not understand anything fully. We can and do gradually learn more about everything. In physics, mathematical forumulas seem to result in "laws" that are rigid and without exception. However, when we now look back, we found that we have had to change many "laws" so that we have reason believe that all of what we know will in time, change as we make it more accurate.

In comparison, psychology is not so subject to mathematical formulating and we can only make generalizations which always end up with exceptions. So, we don't call them "laws." Science has to do with the field's limitations and that does not preclude the subject from being science.

What can make a "science" from not being a science is rationalizing. For example, social science data---including that of psychologists---is gathered in scientific ways but it is interpreted by social theorists in ways that ensure that the over-all picture is the very least offensive to the mythology of the old religions and to other "politically incorrect" subjects.

A number of animals such as ants, jellyfish, sponges, slime mold slugs and even we humans are multicellular colonies or live as social groups. Is that explained through genetic evolution? How?