Do scientist believe in "Love?"

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Lately i get the notion that scientist " somehow" do not believe in love.

The reason for this is because:

 

They don't believe in God.

They don't believe in the human soul.

They appear to have no connection linked with anything that deals with " emotional connections."

 

And yet I hear and even see marine biologist desperately searching for methods to restore coral reef, sea life and etc.

 

The cure for breast cancer is another perfect example, in where doctors " passionately" use science as a means for cures.

 

 

Another example are doctors I know that have stated the reason why they became a neural surgeon was because someone in their family passed away due to cerbral trauma and or other forms of brain damage..

 

Yet I hear and read all over that scientist do not believe in the human soul, god, spirit and etc..

Aren't these what create human to human compassion?

 

I am confused really I am..

 

Aretha Franklin, Nat King Cole, The Movie Beaches, Finding Nemo and etc, have all had incredible success in the entertainment world due to their " emotional connections" with people..

 

Although perhaps in structured financial gains, it has had positive implications on people's lives...

 

I feel however, that scientist don't love their children, do not love as in marriage?

 

I am totally confused and need some guidance as to what science is really all about these days regarding their "claims" of helping the world become a better place..

Edited November 24, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

Of course scientists believe in love (apart, perhaps, from those who are autistic or psychopaths). Some even study it.

 

What does that have to with believe in God or the soul?

 

Even scientists who believe in God or the soul (and there are plenty) should not let that affect their science. After all, science is all about objective measurements and neither God nor the should can be measured.

[Daedalus]

Lately i get the notion that scientist " somehow" do not believe in love.

The reason for this is because:

 

They don't believe in God.

They don't believe in the human soul.

They appear to have no connection linked with anything that deals with " emotional connections."

 

I agree with Strange. How do you define love Iwonderaboutthings? My definition for love does not require a belief in the human soul or a god. The Oxford dictionary defines love as:

 

love

 

noun

[mass noun]

 

1 a strong feeling of affection:

babies fill parents with intense feelings of love

their love for their country

 

a strong feeling of affection and sexual attraction for someone:

they were both in love with her

we were slowly falling in love

 

affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one’s behalf:

give her my love

 

a formula for ending an affectionate letter:

take care, lots of love, Judy

 

2 a great interest and pleasure in something:

his love for football

we share a love of music

 

3 [count noun] a person or thing that one loves:

she was the love of his life

their two great loves are tobacco and whisky

 

British informal a friendly form of address:

it’s all right, love

 

(a love) informal used in affectionate requests:

don’t fret, there’s a love

 

4 (in tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil:

love fifteen

 

None of these definitions require a belief in a soul or in a god.

 

I am confused really I am..

 

Yes, I believe that you are confused. It's not that scientists don't have emotions, but that they have to remain unbiased in their opinions and feelings when conducting science in order to get to the truth of the matter.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

I agree with Strange. How do you define love Iwonderaboutthings? My definition for love does not require a belief in the human soul or a god. The Oxford dictionary defines love as:

 

 

None of these definitions require a belief in a soul or in a god.

 

 

Yes, I believe that you are confused. It's not that scientists don't have emotions, but that they have to remain unbiased in their opinions and feelings when conducting science in order to get to the truth of the matter.

I see now, I heard once that doctors don't perform operations on their own family members cause " emotions" get in the way..

 

I can see now why emotions can be an issue when dealing with the extreme disciplines of math and science combined..

Its better to have them out of the way, or trained to not get in the way,

 

Why I included god and the soul is because I had no other methods to describe this OP..

They seem to be still a mystery, especially the forces of two people that fall in love..

 

 

Now if I could only understand desires...

 

IE, the desire of a Nobel Piece Prize!

[Mad-Scientist]

 

 

..

I feel however, that scientist don't love their children, do not love as in marriage?

 

 

 

Why would you say that? This may be based on the scientists you've known or seen, but that might be a generalized view and biased. Besides, it depends on how you perceive 'love', for some scientists; science is love.

[Fuzzwood]

It takes no weird deity or whatever thought up supernatural thing to understand humans are social creatures through natural selection.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Fuzzwood

[Tridimity]

It depends what you mean by love. Recently I was in love with somebody whom is no longer in my life. If I think about them and look in the mirror, I can see my pupils dilate and my pulse rate will increase. Yet I still know that the only reason that I feel this way is because natural selection has shaped myself and all other human beings to select potential mates and to pair bond until any resulting offspring are of sexual maturity. Love may feel, and does feel, extreme from a subjective point of view but the process that produces that effect is fundamentally heartless. Love does not exist without a conduit; just as noises almost certainly exist independently of our senses, the sound itself requires a listener.

 

Love as portrayed in the movies is hogwash.

[GiantEvil]

It depends what you mean by love. Recently I was in love with somebody whom is no longer in my life. If I think about them and look in the mirror, I can see my pupils dilate and my pulse rate will increase. Yet I still know that the only reason that I feel this way is because natural selection has shaped myself and all other human beings to select potential mates and to pair bond until any resulting offspring are of sexual maturity. Love may feel, and does feel, extreme from a subjective point of view but the process that produces that effect is fundamentally heartless. Love does not exist without a conduit; just as noises almost certainly exist independently of our senses, the sound itself requires a listener.

 

Love as portrayed in the movies is hogwash.

I considered young Wesley to be quite foolish for his unconditional conformity to the "As you wills" of the apparently bratty Buttercup, and then there was that exquisite sword duel with Inigo Montoya. Perhaps some movies would be more realistic with a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ending?

 

@OP; Just because scientists seek a logical model for the human experience it doesn't mean that they are dismissive of the vitality and beauty of that experience.

[iNow]

Just because scientists seek a logical model for the human experience it doesn't mean that they are dismissive of the vitality and beauty of that experience.

Word.

 

 

[Stetson]

I hope you don't imply that all scientists don't believe in a deity. As well, it can be defined that anybody who uses the scientific method is a scientist in a sense. So when you say scientists don't love, it's hard to see. I consider myself an amateur scientist and I know that I unconditionally love my parents, family, and friends. And the feeling is mutual.

 

As far as I'm concerned, scientists lead a healthy social life no more than the next human being if not more.

[Craer]

Love, is an emotional state of attraction.

Science does separate emotion(s) from mathematical certainty.

This by no means stops emotion(s) from existing within mathematics.

Or math existing within emotion(s) for that matter.

[iNow]

Love, is an emotional state of attraction.

Your definition seems both incomplete AND to rely on vague amorphous terms that ultimately take us farther from a clearer understanding than closer to one. Can you define more plainly what you mean by "an emotional state of attraction" and perhaps how it might be measured?

[Craer]

Your definition seems both incomplete AND to rely on vague amorphous terms that ultimately take us farther from a clearer understanding than closer to one. Can you define more plainly what you mean by "an emotional state of attraction" and perhaps how it might be measured?

This subject is not a mathematical one until measurements are found for things we can't yet measure.

 

You are also suggesting psychology has no validity?

Edited December 15, 2013 by Craer

[iNow]

So, basically... No. You are either unwilling or unable to clarify what you meant. Got it.

[Craer]

...

Edited December 15, 2013 by Craer

[iNow]

I asked you to clarify something, that is all. Thus far in response, you've done nothing but evade that request and introduce tangential topics and red herrings.

[Craer]

Emotional attraction is still a bit ambiguous certainly, but then so is 'Love"

 

PET gives a measurement to various emotions.

 

An 'emotion' triggers activity in the brain.

Neutral emotion was distinguishable in the prefrontal cortex, thalamus, hypothalamus and midbrain.

Unpleasant emotion in areas such as bilateral occipito-temporal cortex, cerebellum, left parahippocampal gyrus, hippocampus, and amygdala.

Pleasant was isolated from nuetral but not from unpleasant in the left caudate nucleus.

 

Ref: Neuroanatomical correlates of pleasant and unpleasant emotion 1997,

http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/pubs/1997/neuroanat_pleasant_unpleasant.pdf

Edited December 15, 2013 by Craer

[iNow]

In what way do you suppose that answers my question? You basically shared that different emotional states are largely predictable by measuring where brain activity is most prominent. So what?

 

My request to you was to clarify what "an emotional state of attraction" means, since that's how you defined love. If you cannot answer this question, that's fine. Just say so. I think at this point you're grasping at straws, so I am giving you a way out so we can move forward.

 

Also, I'll just point out to readers that you deleted your entire post above AFTER I replied to it. That's indicative of a person not approaching the discussion in good faith.

[Craer]

"an emotional state of attraction" is a reference to the definition of love as stated by Daedalus via the Oxford Dictionary.

 

If you would like to define love for us please do.

The deletion was due largely to the fact that I realized I was defending myself to someone using logical fallacy as the basis for part of their argument.

Love will need to be defined in an acceptable manner for all parties before this discussion can progress.

Is the Oxford definition acceptable?

How about as defined by the Dalai Lama, "Love is the absence of judgment".

Is emotion no longer an acceptable synonym for 'feeling'?

Edited December 16, 2013 by Craer

[iNow]

"an emotional state of attraction" is a reference to the definition of love as stated by Daedalus via the Oxford Dictionary.

None of those words ("emotional" or "state" or "attraction") are found in the Oxford Dictionary definition of love.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/love?q=love

 

... and only one of them was found in the definition shared above by Daedalus. My question remains unaddressed and your definition remains both lacking and vague. I'm merely asking you to clarify it. Why are you choosing to be difficult instead?

 

 

The deletion was due largely to the fact that I realized I was defending myself to someone using logical fallacy as the basis for part of their argument.

I presume you are referring to me? If so, please kindly clarify what logical fallacy you are asserting I've used and where. Edited December 16, 2013 by iNow

[Craer]

As far as unaddressed questions are concerned, would you care to define love so we can move on?

As for my attempts to clarify in the face of your stonewalling tactics I have no answer other then previously stated.

[iNow]

No, I've not claimed to have a definition of love. There is no onus on me to define it. You, however, have put forth a definition that was vague and mostly nonsense. You have since evaded more than 4 requests to clarify your meaning.

 

Note: You have also now evaded the new question to you to support your assertion that I was using a logical fallacy somewhere, to share which fallacy was used, and in what post.

Edited December 16, 2013 by iNow

[Craer]

The definition you claim I came up with is the exact same thing as the Oxford definition.

I used different words yes certainly.

English has multiple ways of saying the same things using distinctly different words.

[iNow]

The definition... is the exact same thing as the Oxford definition.

I used different words...

So, it's not the exact same thing, then, is it?

You've now evaded 5 requests to clarify. Still waiting.

[Craer]

In this case my word choice was so as to avoid the use of the word 'feeling' and instead use its very definition emotion.

Oxford said: Feeling of Affection

Feeling - an emotional state or reaction

Affection - a gentle feeling of fondness or liking

 

I said: Emotional State of Attraction

Emotional - of or relating to a person's emotions

State - the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time

Attraction - the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something.

 

 

My attempts to clarify that you refuse to acknowledge is not my problem.

No, I've not claimed to have a definition of love. There is no onus on me to define it. You, however, have put forth a definition that was vague and mostly nonsense. You have since evaded more than 4 requests to clarify your meaning.

Note: You have also now evaded the new question to you to support your assertion that I was using a logical fallacy somewhere, to share which fallacy was used, and in what post.

It is the logical fallacy of the Red Herring

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Topic A being the topic stated by the OP

Topic B being this whole clarification of my definition which can be found in any dictionary.

Some of this could also be seen as the Straw Man Fallacy

 

Can we now return to the OP's question of if scientists believe in love?

Edited December 16, 2013 by Craer