charles brough

Never mind the definition. What counts is what it really is: Pride, ego, status, self-respect, etc. are sought instinctively by not only people but all mammals. We compete with each other for attention and status in life. That is the Alpha character in us. Two bulls fighting for dominance is characteristic and women also compete for status among themselves---but for men, it is for women as well as other men. A man who has achieved what others call "success" feels better and has confidence which others detect. Because of it, they tend to differ to him. All service people are grilled in how to give that feeling to the customer whether he or she has status or not. Men who have testosterone Alpha levels but who meet what to them are overpowering obstacles to success (or what we call there in the US, "the American Dream,") tend to beat their wives and children as well as bully others and, in some cases, go out determined just to kill people.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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. :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.

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

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.

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. . .

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.