swansont Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 17 hours ago, Genady said: Swansont claimed to have a full grasp of reality? When? Where? Especially relevant given all the empirical evidence to the contrary 16 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: As indicated some do not even believe that the subjective even exists. I believe that it is the case for the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dennet, harris, Hitchen. I would want evidence of this (they don’t believe the subjective exists? seriously?), but more to the point, these science folks are trained in is limited to biology, and the “four horsemen” discussion the had was about atheism. You’re making a massive and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a narrow field to all of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 45 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Have any suggestions for a better question? I can't think for you, but as @Genady suggests have fun thinking one up, it doesn't have to be high-brow to throw up interesting answers and tangents worth exploring. But if you push me, why was Led Zeppelin so popular in America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: 1- My indictment of science is this <Science cannot refuse to investigate the metaphysical on the grounds that it is not its business to do so and then declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Repeating this strawman does not make it true, but if there are things not materialistic and mechanistic, how would they manifest themselves in a way that can be objectively observed and measured? 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Neither can it impose this worldview Which it doesn’t. Some people reject science. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: until it has definitively resolved the issues of the living and consciousness. Doing so is premature and biased towards other possible worldview candidates.> -me. My beef is focussed, but broadly applicable How does the issue of living and consciousness affect the study of chemistry, physics and geology? Or even biology, outside of neuroscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 44 minutes ago, swansont said: How does the issue of living and consciousness affect the study of chemistry, physics and geology? Or even biology, outside of neuroscience? Not sure, but Luc might be letting panpsychism in the back door. If its conjecture, that all matter has some residual consciousness, were somehow supported (so far, zilch in the evidence department) then it would retrofit the hard sciences. It's a bit like the Star Trek Discovery rubber science idea that outer space is permeated by a mycelium - mind-blowing but lacking in empirical basis. Science has the method tools it has - where observation and objective measure can't go, is meta to science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 50 minutes ago, TheVat said: Not sure, but Luc might be letting panpsychism in the back door. If its conjecture, that all matter has some residual consciousness, were somehow supported (so far, zilch in the evidence department) then it would retrofit the hard sciences. It's a bit like the Star Trek Discovery rubber science idea that outer space is permeated by a mycelium - mind-blowing but lacking in empirical basis. Science has the method tools it has - where observation and objective measure can't go, is meta to science. No, he's trying to retrofit his understanding with endless dead end's, rather than a meta approach to ending the circle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 2 hours ago, TheVat said: It's a bit like the Star Trek Discovery rubber science idea that outer space is permeated by a mycelium Or the weapons used by the android world at the end of Picard S01, that looked like flowers. Maybe they should call Swansont back to consult on the science, as all the new shows are destroying a dynasty, and I will not watch them. Except Strange New Worlds, which I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted June 6 Author Share Posted June 6 3 hours ago, TheVat said: It's been a good question. I think there have been assumptions made by many in cognitive sciences on how the brain works, that are a sort of bias. Once again, cognitive scientist Robert Epstein's famous article which takes down the notion that the brain is like a computer.... https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer Yes, yes, this is bias. This is exactly what I was implying from the get go. Not only in neuroscience, but in many disciplines. The brain is definitely not a computer, But when discussing this with many neuroscientists, they do not even have a fallback position, only being able to discuss the matter in a computer analogy context. 4 hours ago, swansont said: Especially relevant given all the empirical evidence to the contrary I would want evidence of this (they don’t believe the subjective exists? seriously?), but more to the point, these science folks are trained in is limited to biology, and the “four horsemen” discussion the had was about atheism. You’re making a massive and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a narrow field to all of science. I said that they probably did not, not that they definitely did. I will investigate. And you are correct that it would have been unsubstantiated if I stated it as a fact. However, I remember a Dennet talk that definitely implied that there was next to nothingness after the objective reality. 3 hours ago, swansont said: Repeating this strawman does not make it true, but if there are things not materialistic and mechanistic, how would they manifest themselves in a way that can be objectively observed and measured? This is a contention of mine, which, you are correct again, does not make it true. I put the statement up there to clarify my position on the matter under discussion. Putting someone in a scanner is a way of peering into the subjective nature of mind. 3 hours ago, swansont said: Which it doesn’t. Some people reject science. It does even if some reject it. Polarization does not only exist in politics. 3 hours ago, swansont said: How does the issue of living and consciousness affect the study of chemistry, physics and geology? Or even biology, outside of neuroscience? If I tell you that mind expresses itself through brain, then what does stop it from having an effect on more elementary matter? 3 hours ago, TheVat said: Not sure, but Luc might be letting panpsychism in the back door. If its conjecture, that all matter has some residual consciousness, were somehow supported (so far, zilch in the evidence department) then it would retrofit the hard sciences. It's a bit like the Star Trek Discovery rubber science idea that outer space is permeated by a mycelium - mind-blowing but lacking in empirical basis. Science has the method tools it has - where observation and objective measure can't go, is meta to science. Yes, letting panpsychism through the backdoor. Not saying that it is, but one shall not preliminarily disqualify it. A minority but growing number of neuroscientists are now contemplating this. Why is this? Because of contrary findings to a mind from brain model. I have given many intriguing areas of investigations on this matter in some of my posts. And these mind from brain inconsistencies can be empirically studied. Do remember that Wilder Penfield started his career as a staunch mind from brain proponent, made numerous prodding of the brain with electrodes and ended his carrer saying that he was no longer sure of this. When prodding his patients with electrodes, something would happen, but patients always replied, “its not me doing this, you are” which was unexpected. One of many odd results of neuroscience studies. 2 hours ago, dimreepr said: No, he's trying to retrofit his understanding with endless dead end's, rather than a meta approach to ending the circle... Not smart enough to understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Yes, yes, this is bias. This is exactly what I was implying from the get go. Not only in neuroscience, but in many disciplines. Except you haven’t supported this idea for many disciplines. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: The brain is definitely not a computer, But when discussing this with many neuroscientists, they do not even have a fallback position, only being able to discuss the matter in a computer analogy context. Not knowing the answer is an acceptable position in science. And they only discuss the brain with computer analogies? Even as they say it doesn’t work like a computer? 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: I said that they probably did not, not that they definitely did. I will investigate. And you are correct that it would have been unsubstantiated if I stated it as a fact. However, I remember a Dennet talk that definitely implied that there was next to nothingness after the objective reality. You said you believed they did, so one infers that you have reasons for this belief. I don’t believe this, and further I believe they don’t, because intelligent, rational people likely understand that there is personal preference, which is subjective. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: This is a contention of mine, which, you are correct again, does not make it true. I put the statement up there to clarify my position on the matter under discussion. Putting someone in a scanner is a way of peering into the subjective nature of mind. If you contend something is true, you must have evidence which leads to that position. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: It does even if some reject it. Polarization does not only exist in politics. If people reject science then science is not imposing a view. At best, it is suggesting a view. But it’s not even doing that. It’s setting up the boundary of what it can investigate. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: If I tell you that mind expresses itself through brain, then what does stop it from having an effect on more elementary matter? What impact can this possibly have on identifying a rock or mineral? This is your contention, so you own the burden of proof. People had ideas and thoughts long before they had any clue whatsoever about how the mind worked, and have had mistaken ideas about how it works, so this doesn’t seem to be an impediment outside of this very narrow slice of science. If we overturn every mainstream idea about the brain tomorrow, will that somehow make E=mc^2 invalid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSC Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 @Luc Turpin So I haven't read everything that is in this post, just first and last pages but a thought has occurred to me; the scientific method as it is, is designed to reduce (not eliminate) bias as much as is humanly possible, but when you see something that makes you think something is biased, is it the method or the individuals themselves? I guess I'm just wondering if it has occurred to you that scientific research into human biases is all that needs to happen for us to understand how it works in all areas humans are active in? Right now I'm just trying to figure out what your main claims really are as I'm struggling to understand. Keep in mind this is a split thread so it might be good for you to think about what the OP would have been if you'd opened up the discussion on your terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted June 6 Author Share Posted June 6 23 minutes ago, MSC said: @Luc Turpin So I haven't read everything that is in this post, just first and last pages but a thought has occurred to me; the scientific method as it is, is designed to reduce (not eliminate) bias as much as is humanly possible, but when you see something that makes you think something is biased, is it the method or the individuals themselves? I guess I'm just wondering if it has occurred to you that scientific research into human biases is all that needs to happen for us to understand how it works in all areas humans are active in? Right now I'm just trying to figure out what your main claims really are as I'm struggling to understand. Keep in mind this is a split thread so it might be good for you to think about what the OP would have been if you'd opened up the discussion on your terms. yes, the process reduces, but does not eliminate bias. its the individuals t not the method. studying it will help identify and control it, but it remains essentially a human affair. my main bone of contention is that science wishes to study only what is measurable (fair enough) and then inadvertently or otherwise, a determination is made on the predominant worldview without consideration for the subjective aspect of reality. This to me is the main bias in science. 2 hours ago, swansont said: Except you haven’t supported this idea for many disciplines. Not knowing the answer is an acceptable position in science. And they only discuss the brain with computer analogies? Even as they say it doesn’t work like a computer? You said you believed they did, so one infers that you have reasons for this belief. I don’t believe this, and further I believe they don’t, because intelligent, rational people likely understand that there is personal preference, which is subjective. If you contend something is true, you must have evidence which leads to that position. If people reject science then science is not imposing a view. At best, it is suggesting a view. But it’s not even doing that. It’s setting up the boundary of what it can investigate. What impact can this possibly have on identifying a rock or mineral? This is your contention, so you own the burden of proof. People had ideas and thoughts long before they had any clue whatsoever about how the mind worked, and have had mistaken ideas about how it works, so this doesn’t seem to be an impediment outside of this very narrow slice of science. If we overturn every mainstream idea about the brain tomorrow, will that somehow make E=mc^2 invalid? 1- agree that I have not supported other disciplines 2- yes, it is acceptable to not have an answer 3- those that have not moved on, seem to not be able to go beyond computer analogies. This observation comes from those that have moved on will continue tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSC Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: my main bone of contention is that science wishes to study only what is measurable (fair enough) and then inadvertently or otherwise, a determination is made on the predominant worldview without consideration for the subjective aspect of reality. This to me is the main bias in science. To me this doesn't represent a bias in science but a lack of imagination in individual scientists and that isn't meant as an insult, having a deductively sound hypothesis is the easy part, developing an inductive method of experimentation to determine the validity/strength of the hypothesis is the hard part. You said measurable, when really the case is whether or not something is quantifiable. Find what is quantifiable about a phenomena and then you'll have something with which to make measurements. Scientists aren't a very uniform group either because you have all of these different fields and determining who's field a given phenomena belongs to is key. Broad strokes locks doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Maybe we can just agree that science itself has no bias, but it is done by humans, who do have biases. I, myself, prefer LQG over Sstring Theory. And TheVat and I prefer the older Star Treks over the newer ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 3 minutes ago, MigL said: And TheVat and I prefer the older Star Treks over the newer ones. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted June 7 Author Share Posted June 7 15 hours ago, swansont said: You said you believed they did, so one infers that you have reasons for this belief. If you contend something is true, you must have evidence which leads to that position. If people reject science then science is not imposing a view. At best, it is suggesting a view. But it’s not even doing that. It’s setting up the boundary of what it can investigate. What impact can this possibly have on identifying a rock or mineral? This is your contention, so you own the burden of proof. People had ideas and thoughts long before they had any clue whatsoever about how the mind worked, and have had mistaken ideas about how it works, so this doesn’t seem to be an impediment outside of this very narrow slice of science. If we overturn every mainstream idea about the brain tomorrow, will that somehow make E=mc^2 invalid? 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. 10 hours ago, MSC said: To me this doesn't represent a bias in science but a lack of imagination in individual scientists and that isn't meant as an insult, having a deductively sound hypothesis is the easy part, developing an inductive method of experimentation to determine the validity/strength of the hypothesis is the hard part. You said measurable, when really the case is whether or not something is quantifiable. Find what is quantifiable about a phenomena and then you'll have something with which to make measurements. Scientists aren't a very uniform group either because you have all of these different fields and determining who's field a given phenomena belongs to is key. Broad strokes locks doors. 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. 8 hours ago, MigL said: 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. Agree with you on this matter. I also am interested in your likes and dislikes 😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 18 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 20 hours ago, dimreepr said: No, he's trying to retrofit his understanding with endless dead end's, rather than a meta approach to ending the circle... Not smart enough to understand this. 14 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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? Quote noun the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space: "they would regard the question of the initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religion" abstract theory with no basis in reality: "the very subject of milk pricing involves one in a wonderland of accounting practice and a metaphysics all its own" You're using it wrong, it's desighned to 'stop' us going round in circles chasing our tails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted June 7 Author Share Posted June 7 8 minutes ago, dimreepr said: You're using it wrong, it's desighned to 'stop' us going round in circles chasing our tails. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. 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. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. Dawkins does not refute what? We’re talking about subjectivity, so he’s equating subjectivity with itself? 57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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! 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. 57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. It’s been pretty successful at it. 57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. IOW, your issue is with one topic, and have not shown this concern applies to the rest of science. 57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. Lack of success in one area does not mean the endeavor has failed overall. 57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. You act as if this issue is stopping all of science from progressing, which is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted June 7 Author Share Posted June 7 50 minutes ago, dimreepr said: 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. 😉 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: What I don't get is how are we going round in circles chasing our tails. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted June 7 Author Share Posted June 7 59 minutes ago, swansont said: 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. 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... 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted June 7 Author Share Posted June 7 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: 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. 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. 9 minutes ago, dimreepr said: 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... 🙄 Laughed again😊 Its not religion, but maybe, just maybe spirituality. Again, the jury is still out on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 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. Who would you choose to populate the jury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts