Do scientist believe in "Love?"

[Dekan]

Looking at this scientifically, "Love" is a bonding force. It can bond man to woman, in the straight scenario.

It can also bond man to man, and woman to woman, in the far more interesting gay variant.

 

And aren't such variants also embodied in the Universal building blocks, the atoms.

 

Atoms contain protons(positive charge), electrons(negative charge),and neutrons(neutral charge)

 

Mighn't these particles be better thought of, not in terms of "charge", but of sexuality.

 

Thus protons are male, forming the dominant king nucleus. Electrons are female, like a cloud of wives swirling dutifully round the king. And the neutrons are the intimate bisexual favourites of the king. Like in Richard II, where intimate male friend led to the splitting of the dynasty, and the subsequent Wars of the Roses.

 

Just as a neutron can lead to the splitting of the atom, and subsequent Nuclear Wars.

 

The parallel seems exact. It hasn't happened yet, but surely it must come soon?

Edited December 28, 2013 by Dekan

[Lightmeow]

Love is an emotion, it has nothing to do with faith or anything else. I don't need to believe in your god to have a connection to the emotional part of my brain. You can anger a scientist, so why do you say:

 

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

 

Regards.

[Davidjayjordan]

True scientists believe in love because it is observable where an individual puts others before themselves. Whereas evolutionary scientists have no answer for love, as evolution dictates that selfishness is the only cause for evolutionary advancement. What was the name evolutionists use for love between animals or species that is unexplainable in their theory.

 

WHY because love goes against their theory, everything is luck and chance and seflish genetic advancement. Putting others before themselves is absolutely diabolical in their way of thinking because they can not explain it.

[swansont]

True scientists believe in love because it is observable where an individual puts others before themselves. Whereas evolutionary scientists have no answer for love, as evolution dictates that selfishness is the only cause for evolutionary advancement. What was the name evolutionists use for love between animals or species that is unexplainable in their theory.

 

WHY because love goes against their theory, everything is luck and chance and seflish genetic advancement. Putting others before themselves is absolutely diabolical in their way of thinking because they can not explain it.

 

!

Moderator Note

Discussion about where evolution fits in with evolution is off-topic here, as is evolution-bashing.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

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.

Well the issue arises when " love" as an intangible form " cannot be physically proven to exist " by scientist.

I have been told by scientist that since this is the case, that " love " and all that it has connection to including god and the human spirit ie " life force" energy or what ever you want to call it, does not exist... IE God teaches people to love each other through religious beliefs, rather this is true or false, it appears that scientist fallow this same similarity??? They can love then???

 

if so, is this a unique type of love?

Or is Love something universal?

 

In other words, is the love scientist feel " not the same as the love god and religion teaches people to have for each other???

 

SERIOUSLY???

 

 

Maybe I am just a bit too mindful in a sense as what is what, and how to define what with whatever can be used to define something that we cannot see only feel..

 

 

Personally, I think humans created love because just as with all things they have, it can never be " constant" to the true forces of nature.

 

Example: Gays and Lesbian are not allowed to equally share this love and bonding I am reading on this thread, and yet we all share the " same constant" oxygen in the air. Humans however alter this love privilege among themselves...

 

As for love still remaining intangible.

 

I see the same principles with time. On regards of humans being naturally selected, is there or can there ever be a scientific way to prove this?

 

As far as I see it to be, scientist like so many seem to accept this intangible emotions " fact" when in reality it is no different than the speed of light that defines time, of which time cannot be physically proven to exist.

 

 

What really bothers me about all this in general is that humans have their own " dogmas" rules laws styles and etc, and yet they all can share love????? HOW SO???

 

 

Given what I have been told over and over again about " scientific fact" either Love is something that is perceived as being a good thing, or scientist are wrong about other systems of metaphysical nature..

True scientists believe in love because it is observable where an individual puts others before themselves. Whereas evolutionary scientists have no answer for love, as evolution dictates that selfishness is the only cause for evolutionary advancement. What was the name evolutionists use for love between animals or species that is unexplainable in their theory.

 

WHY because love goes against their theory, everything is luck and chance and seflish genetic advancement. Putting others before themselves is absolutely diabolical in their way of thinking because they can not explain it.

I 100% agree with you!

Edited January 5, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[John Cuthber]

 

I 100% agree with you!

That's unfortunate, because he's substantially wrong.

This bit

"True scientists believe in love because it is observable"

is right, but he simply hasn't understood evolution: I'd explain why but it's OT.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

That's unfortunate, because he's substantially wrong.

This bit

"True scientists believe in love because it is observable"

is right, but he simply hasn't understood evolution: I'd explain why but it's OT.

who cares if its out of the OT, I would like to hear your point of view.

 

 

So then, what would evolution have to do with love??

 

I " although philosophically speaking" believe that our concepts of " attraction" and or emotional bonding has much to do with our first experiences with our parents and or parent..

 

Our mind's adjust to this " connection of human to human dependency such as a monetary systems per say, in where a whole species becomes " compliant to an order and or structure for survival, when in fact humans are animals with frontal lobe brain usages " a trained species per say" along with their emotions.

 

By the way, when I say emotions I mean:

 

Human desires, love and affection, the need to have nice clothes, cars, diamonds, awards and etc...

These all share " emotional addictions" either man made or from other areas of the mind we do not know of...

 

So to continue :

 

humans are animals with frontal lobe brain usages, I guess natural selection??? Interesting, hymmm how about maybe these frontal lobe capabilities is what keeps humanity from evolving " bonding" becoming one with nature per say... Now that is evolution and boding at least in a workable progressive " evolutionary sense."

 

Its all psychological and passed down from generation to generation.

However, since emotions are intangible, how can anyone define them and or prove they exists???

 

 

This also includes passion for discoveries, the quest for discipline, the need to explore.

They all involve an intangible desire " undefined."

 

I look at it this way as well, a scientific device that is created to give results and thus the results inherit the man made deficiencies...Man made devices are all subjected to " defects and or other mechanical issues of imperfection..

 

They are such as time in where time " only evolves if and only if there is a distance as a derivative and a observable..

Otherwise there is no exist " period." ??? Was that right of me to state??

 

I assume this to be the case but I may be wrong, which is always welcomed..

[AndresKiani]

As a scientist..

 

I believe in God, I believe in the soul, I also believe in Love.

 

I believe that God is the source of all energy, energy is life.

 

We have a soul, which is our energy, our unit of life.

 

Love is said to be a chemical reaction, but than so would be happiness, and so his hurt and pain. If you burn your hand ... are you not really burning your hand? Or is it just a chemical reaction that you feel the pain?

 

Just cause its a chemical or a neurological reaction doesn't make something not real, infact I think it makes it even more real.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

As a scientist..

 

I believe in God, I believe in the soul, I also believe in Love.

 

I believe that God is the source of all energy, energy is life.

 

We have a soul, which is our energy, our unit of life.

 

Love is said to be a chemical reaction, but than so would be happiness, and so his hurt and pain. If you burn your hand ... are you not really burning your hand? Or is it just a chemical reaction that you feel the pain?

 

Just cause its a chemical or a neurological reaction doesn't make something not real, infact I think it makes it even more real.

Well it is about time I hear this from a scientist, I agree 100% with you..

[davidivad]

1

Edited January 12, 2014 by davidivad

[John Cuthber]

As a scientist..

 

I believe in God, I believe in the soul, I also believe in Love.

 

I believe that God is the source of all energy, energy is life.

 

We have a soul, which is our energy, our unit of life.

 

Love is said to be a chemical reaction, but than so would be happiness, and so his hurt and pain. If you burn your hand ... are you not really burning your hand? Or is it just a chemical reaction that you feel the pain?

 

Just cause its a chemical or a neurological reaction doesn't make something not real, infact I think it makes it even more real.

Presumably, if you do all those things "as a scientist" you have evidence for them all.

Please cite it.

[iNow]

Well it is about time I hear this from a scientist, I agree 100% with you..

Not that it really matters, because whether or not someone is a scientist and also believes in god is really irrelevant, but it should be noted that Andre is not (yet) a scientist. He's already shared elsewhere on the site just 2 days ago that he's still a student still in training and not yet practicing professionally.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81127-biology-and-physics/#entry786334

...my knowledge of Physics is very limited and I'm yet in community college so I don't understand much...

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Not that it really matters, because whether or not someone is a scientist and also believes in god is really irrelevant, but it should be noted that Andre is not (yet) a scientist. He's already shared elsewhere on the site just 2 days ago that he's still a student still in training and not yet practicing professionally.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81127-biology-and-physics/#entry786334

What does " professionally" have to do with physical facts??

Does this mean I need to make their comment any less???

 

Thats politics, I think you confuse " human survival " IE: a job, a man made monetary system, with physical observable orders of nature..

 

 

Rather someone gets paid to prove a fact or not, the fact is still a fact, or am I confused on this???

 

You mention that this person is still a student and does not know the whole of physics??

 

I have yet to see " paid" scientist find physical evidence of the emotional premise of " love" not to mention " time."

 

 

Love:

 

What does it look like?

Does it have a color?

Can you touch this " physically?

Does it have mass???

 

I'm sorry are these the protocols of science or am I confused on this???

 

 

Why do so many describe this emotion with " intangible explanations???

 

Truly their should be an equation "prediction" to find it then...

Presumably, if you do all those things "as a scientist" you have evidence for them all.

Please cite it.

I don't mean to barge in here, but why am I thinking about " plastic surgery" and the effects it has on the human mind... Hymmm, anyway...

 

 

Doesn't serotonin react to sunlight???

"Physiological" reactions of negative and positive thinking perhaps?

 

Not sure if this is applicable to love though but they are physical consequences of neural reactions to human emotional interactions--> that still need to be proved for their existence by scientist. That is, to prove this physical chemical reactions linked to something in-dependent from the source, in this case love, emotions and the human "brain."

 

Chocolate on the Brain

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/kcoveleskie.html

 

 

Hormones that make you happy

http://www.2knowmyself.com/Hormones_that_make_you_happy

 

 

Male Puberty Hormones and What They Do

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/male-puberty4.htm

 

Thats a start...

1

2

Edited January 20, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[iNow]

My point should not have been hard to comprehend. You assumed he was already a practicing scientist, and spoke of how delighted you were to read such a post from a scientist. I merely pointed out to you that he was still a student in community college. None of the rest of your post warrants response.

[John Cuthber]

"I'm sorry are these the protocols of science or am I confused on this???"

You are confused.

Re

"What does it look like?

Does it have a color?

Can you touch this " physically?

Does it have mass???"

the same can be said of plenty of abstract scientific ideas like gravity

[Iwonderaboutthings]

"I'm sorry are these the protocols of science or am I confused on this???"

You are confused.

Re

"What does it look like?

Does it have a color?

Can you touch this " physically?

Does it have mass???"

the same can be said of plenty of abstract scientific ideas like gravity

 

 

I think its only more than obvious non of us "here" can prove love's emotional existence, either being philosophical, intuitive or what have you.

 

Of which should make professional scientist look bad in a public forum..

 

How so???

 

Because they live accordingly to humanity's emotional addictions...

 

IE: they have families they care for, they are passionate about discoveries, they get married, etc etc.

 

No one wins really, its just that human emotions cannot be proven by scientist.

 

So then the big question????

 

What then are emotions???? Could they exists in another dimension such as time??

 

I am no joking when I ask these question by the way.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[iNow]

Neuroscience. Your questions are hardly as unanswerable as you seem to believe.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Neuroscience. Your questions are hardly as unanswerable as you seem to believe.

I think neuroscience would be better off for a topic on hyper dimensional reality and QM, were talking about love not pop science..

[John Cuthber]

This thread is now ridiculous.

The question has been answered and any assertion that scientists don't believe in love is insulting: of course they do, they are not stupid.

 

Continuing to assert that they do not is a breach of the rules.

[Alan McDougall]

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.

 

A lot of them, however, believe love and other emotions are just due to brain hormones etc.

This thread is now ridiculous.

The question has been answered and any assertion that scientists don't believe in love is insulting: of course they do, they are not stupid.

 

Continuing to assert that they do not is a breach of the rules.

 

Maybe a moderator should decide if it is really a breach of rules.

[Dekan]

Perhaps asking whether scientists believe in love, might be like asking whether they believe in anthropogenic global warming.

 

Both questions being a breach of the rules?

[imatfaal]

Can you please hold back on the Galileo syndrome posting - whether posts are against our rules is quite clearly judged by reading our rules which are open for any one to read at any time.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

Questions of Science are always acceptable - and we have an ongoing thread on the validity of anthropogenic climate change; but if you continue to fallaciously misrepresent the alternative viewpoint then you might be asked to desist. In this thread so far, it seems to me at least, those espousing a scientific perspective have been reasonable and engaged with alternative view, whereas there has been a significant movement to typecast scientists in an unfair and unrealistic light.

 

For your guidance around 99.5percent of scientists who publish in the climate sciences agree that the evidence backs up the hypothesis that mankind has caused a shift in climate - so yes, in as much as the question is well-formed (it isn't), scientists do believe in anthropogenic climate change

[Dekan]

Do you mean that because 99.5% of scientists who publish in the climate sciences agree with the currently fashionable hypothesis, then they must be right.

 

Are scientific questions decided on the principle of a majority verdict?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Dekan

[Alan McDougall]

Do you mean that because 99.5% of scientists who publish in the climate sciences agree with the currently fashionable hypothesis, then they must be right.

 

Are scientific questions decided on the principle of a majority verdict?

 

The scientists in question have based their belief on the solid grounds of "scientific evidence", not "follow your leader' you insultingly suggest.

[Arete]

Are scientific questions decided on the principle of a majority verdict of evidence supporting one of two competing hypotheses?

 

Fixed... and the answer is yes.

 

When the vast majority of observations are shown to statistically support a hypothesis, it would generally be scientifically accepted.