As a scientifically minded person. The propensity for the left to go for "woo"...

[Locut0s]

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 07:58 AM - Edit history (2)

Is one of those things I disparage about the political ideology I hold so strongly to otherwise. I'm not going to argue the details of what is and isn't "woo", plenty of other threads are doing that. I'd just like to file my disappointment I sometimes feel and see how many others are with me.

As etherealtruth points out this really is a bipartisan issue. I think what I'm getting at is I'm simply more shocked at the anti scientific side on the left.

And BTW I'm not talking down to or singling out any specific belief here. I see that a lot of people seem angry in here that they feel they are being called idiots or stupid and the like. Know that that's not what I'm saying here. I simply very strongly disagree with many of those beliefs.

[pnwmom]

1. Are you a scientist in real life

or do you just play one on DU?

[Locut0s]

2. Are you a politician in real life?...

Or do you just play one on DU?.

This being a political site I'm sure you have posted opinions on politics and the like. Should I say you have to be a politician to have a valid point of view on the mater?

This argument could be used for just about anything.

Why not just say I don't agree with you instead?

[pnwmom]

3. A lot of people here have been claiming a scientific expertise

that they don't really have.

There is no such thing as political expertise, Karl Rove notwithstanding.

[Locut0s]

5. Science isn't some impenetrable Gray edifice...

Scientists aren't rare super intelligent beings pondering the workings of the universe that few can even hope to comprehend. Certainly the latest papers in quantum mechanics may fall into this realm but science as a whole is as approachable and understandable a subject as any other. I'm not an English literature major but I've taken enough English courses, read enough poetry and literature and the like to be able to tell a grade 8 English essay from a 4th year students dissertation. I couldn't make heads or tails out of the latest developments in math but I've taken enough university level calculus and other math courses to be able to tell you when an equation is utter jiberish nonsense.

I don't need to be a nascar driver or have 20 years of truck driving under my belt to be able to point out dangerous driving practises in others.

Science is like any other field. It's not an all or nothing endeavour. You aren't a scientists or nothing at all in the same way that you aren't a 3 star Michelin chef or nothing at all. I like to cook and have made enough recipes and served enough people that I can tell when someone doesn't have any idea what they are doing.

No I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about science that I know what I'm talking about when speaking of science.

[pnwmom]

6. I agree. And I know enough scientists personally

to know that they tend to be much more humble, and much more aware of the limits of their knowledge, than many of the people who claim to speak for them here.

[Locut0s]

7. So you are saying that debunking pseudoscience is speaking for scientists?...

I highly doubt many scientists would think you were being too arrogant or full of yourself for speaking out against most pseudoscience.

[Shankapotomus]

21. You may find this interesting

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

It's about the gathering of intelligence data but it could conceivably be applied to the practice of a proto-science.

http://asiancrime.org/sites/default/files/Actuarial_Intelligence_by_Paul_Moore.pdfpdf

Actuarial Intelligence has also been suggested by an actual scientist as a kind of statistically accurate intuition that guided the life and death decisions of hunter-gatherers.

While it doesn't make them more reliable than a real scientist, it's possible some non-scientists on DU (not of the woo kind) are relying on a form of actuarial intelligence coupled with a more than fundamental knowledge of present day science.

[Voice for Peace]

58. the link doesn't work but the concept makes a great deal of sense to me.

[Shankapotomus]

87. link fixed

http://asiancrime.org/sites/default/files/Actuarial_Intelligence_by_Paul_Moore.pdf

It's six pages if you're up for it but a quick read.

[Lizzie Poppet]

43. "There is no such thing as political expertise"

Obviously, because the field of Political Science doesn't exist.

Oh, wait...

[Gore1FL]

52. Scientific literacy is different than being formally trained as a physicist.

[The Straight Story]

4. Is scientist a job or a method?

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. (wiki def).

So I suppose anyone could be a scientist.

[intaglio]

22. Where in the OP does the poster claim to be a scientist?

And why do you think that use of the scientific method and skepticism are exclusively reserved for one profession?

[pnwmom]

25. I think there should be equal opportunity skepticism.

I see too many people here who are enthralled with Big Pharma, rather than training their skeptical eyes in that direction, too.

Instead, they see "woo" everywhere else.

[NuclearDem]

29. Question Big Pharma, yes.

Money corrupts, and drive for profit makes big companies do downright evil stuff.

But that doesn't legitimize pseudoscience or allow alternative medicine to replace modern medicine.

[intaglio]

36. No they see credulous persons like yourself

Persons unable to distinguish between open mindedness and uncritical acceptance. Skeptics look for evidence, whether the claimant is a pharmaceutical company or a purveyor of flim-flam.

You seem happy to accept the unsupported claims of a few fast talkers but seem unwilling to spend even half a day checking the claims of medics

[eShirl]

8. In any large group of individuals, some will always be closer to various fringes.

It's human nature, apparently; it's not exclusive to any particular political ideology.

[Locut0s]

10. This is true...

Though some pseudoscientific beliefs like naturopathy seem to more often skew left. Perhaps this is observer bias on my part?

[eShirl]

14. not necessarily observer bias

I think different personality types might be attracted to different types of "woo"

as an example of what I have in mind, naturopathy might appeal more to anti-authoritarians, while prayer/faith healing might appeal more to authoritarians

[Locut0s]

16. Ok agreed...

And also pointed out in etherialteuth's reply.

[Voice for Peace]

60. or unquestioning obedience to your doctor, rather than prayer

I have had so many inept medical professionals give me
wrong advice, bad information, and bad drugs. Now I
am skeptical of everything modern medicine and everyone
who practices it. Have also had some looney alternative
practitioners. I keep coming back to (I think it was)
Socrates' advice: physician, heal thyself

[cantbeserious]

9. Some Woo That You May Choose To Reconsider

[intaglio]

35. Well, Quantum Enigma is not woo

it is a serious examination of the implications of the measurement problem. Profs Rosenbaum and Kutner are careful to explain and to distance themselves from the ignorance of certain people who attempt to use their book to support nonsense theories. Of course it suffers from the problem that no-one has actually defined what consciousness or awareness actually is.

Now contrast with "Return to Life". In all cases highlighted by Dr Tucker the children were either schooled in the histories they were recounting or had other sources of information about their supposed previous existence - notably the leading questions asked by their interviewers. The few who were returned to the site of this past life either made simple errors or, like all children picked up on cues from their companions. It is some years since I read the debunking of this but I seem to recall most of the children forgot these supposed prior lives a year or so later.

There are, of course, another problems. Why do only a few "return" or conversely why do so few recall their past lives? The persons who were supposedly reborn lived lives that were unexceptional so why were they chosen to be reincarnated? On the other hand if only certain persons are able to recall their past lives why is that so? When does this transfer of awareness happen; if at conception how does the aware soul stay sane for 9 months in a sensory deprivation cell; how does it survive the birth pangs? Why does the transfered soul make itself apparent by early acquisition of speech or why, if speech has to be gained naturally does the revelation only happen some time after that not at the time of acquisition? If the transfered awareness waits until later what happens to the person taken over by this new soul?

[cantbeserious]

38. Both Topics Interlaced And Related At The Quantum Level

eom

[intaglio]

40. Whargarble eom

[cantbeserious]

44. Non Responsive Post

eom

[intaglio]

45. So was yours

It was just a statement of blind faith with no supporting evidence

to put it another way - Whargarble

I suspect you follow the beliefs of a certain Dr Chopra who issues similar whargarble

[cantbeserious]

46. English Written Clearly - One Might Try It Sometime

eom

[intaglio]

47. you haven't read any of my previous posts

Or haven't you even tried reason or reading for comprehension.

[cantbeserious]

49. Have Read Them All - All Judged Non Responsive By Woo Fighter - Fight On

eom

[intaglio]

50. Non-responsive Whargarble

Do you have difficulty writing more than one or two sentences? Perhaps you should go into continuing education, perhaps learn some language skills or maybe find out about simple mathematics and basic scientific theory.

Who knows? One day you might be able to put together a coherent post of 4 or 5 sentences and win people over to your views with your stunning and detailed insights

Nahhhh, can't see that happening.

[cantbeserious]

82. Non Responsive Post

eom

[intaglio]

84. So you cannot be bothered to write more than one phrase or sentence

This classifies you as a fool and a troll. Oh on DU n/t is the usual method of ending a brief post but you are only interested in yourself leading me to suspect you are between 11 and 13 years old.

[gcomeau]

63. Is that you Deepak Chopra?

I only ask because the cavalier way the word "Quantum" was thrown in in a manner that clearly communicates you have no understanding of it but think it works as some kind of magic wand to explain crazy nonsense in a scientific sounding way.

[cantbeserious]

67. Ad Hominem Attacks - The Worst Of The Logical Fallacies

eom

[gcomeau]

68. Please go learn what an "ad hominem attack" is.

I was criticizing the vacuous nonsense that was the content (if it can be called that) of your post.

[cantbeserious]

72. Once Again - An Ad Hominem Attack - Vacuous Accusations

eom

[gcomeau]

73. Wow, you really do like to use terms you don't understand don't you?

Just driving that point home for everyone are we?

[cantbeserious]

74. Wow - Deflection Of The Highest Order - Well Played

eom

[gcomeau]

75. Pointing out what is happening is "deflection" now?

Is this silly little game you're playing fun for you? Just picking random descritions of what could be happening in the conversation that claiming they actually are happening?

What's up next? Saying I'm committing argumentum ad absurdum?

Oooh, how about slippery slope! Everyone loves slippery slope...

[SidDithers]

76. Yup. Woo Woo credo #10

10 Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means. For a more impressive effect, use it with the name of your favorite superstition - "quantum dowsing" sure sounds mighty serious.

http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

Sid

[LongTomH]

79. Your comment that: "In all cases highlighted by Dr Tucker the children were either schooled......

......in the histories they were recounting or had other sources of information about their supposed previous existence - notably the leading questions asked by their interviewers."

Please cite the source(s) for your statements. I did a quick search and was unable to find a reference to this.

Please note that this is a polite request for source information, not an attack.

[intaglio]

85. Check James Randi's site for detail.

You'll ignore it but - hey you will ignore anything that challenges you.

Edit to add - There was also a BBC documentary on the subject some years ago

[LongTomH]

89. I won't ignore it, despite your ad hominem

Edited to add: A preliminary search of www.randi.org failed to turn up references to either Jim Tucker or the book title: "Return to Life."

Can you provide a link?

[FarCenter]

81. Quantum physics works the same whether the observer is a human or a computer

Consciousness is not involved. If it were, quantum cryptography between computers wouldn't work.

[cantbeserious]

83. Tell That To The Authors, Not The Poster

eom

[intaglio]

86. You are the one proposing that these books be taken seriously

Try giving your reasoning.

[truebluegreen]

11. Just an idea

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."--Arthur C. Clarke

[etherealtruth]

12. Anti-science Beliefs Jeopardize US Democracy

"...What has turned so many Americans against science—the very tool that has transformed the quality and quantity of their lives?"

"Today's denial of inconvenient science comes from partisans on both ends of the political spectrum. Science denialism among Democrats tends to be motivated by unsupported suspicions of hidden dangers to health and the environment. Common examples include the belief that cell phones cause brain cancer (high school physics shows why this is impossible) or that vaccines cause autism (science has shown no link whatsoever). Republican science denialism tends to be motivated by antiregulatory fervor and fundamentalist concerns over control of the reproductive cycle. Examples are the conviction that global warming is a hoax (billions of measurements show it is a fact) or that we should “teach the controversy” to schoolchildren over whether life on the planet was shaped by evolution over millions of years or an intelligent designer over thousands of years (scientists agree evolution is real). Of these two forms of science denialism, the Republican version is more dangerous because the party has taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when science disagrees with its ideology."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy

[Locut0s]

13. I think you are right. I was too quick to jump the gun...

And pin this as a predominately left issue. I guess the reason is, being left leaning, the part that's on my side is more shocking to me and therefore stands out more. Observer bias as I was saying above.

[etherealtruth]

15. Look at the polling regarding belief in evolution

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Public's Views on Human Evolution

There also are sizable differences by party affiliation in beliefs about evolution, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown. In 2009, 54% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats said humans have evolved over time, a difference of 10 percentage points. Today, 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say humans have evolved, a 24-point gap.

Although Democrats have a much higher likelihood of reporting belief in evolution there is still 33% that do not ... not a great number

[pampango]

17. "Republican science denialism tends to be motivated by antiregulatory fervor and fundamentalist

concerns over control of the reproductive cycle."

"Science denialism among Democrats tends to be motivated by unsupported suspicions of hidden dangers to health and the environment."

"Of these two forms of science denialism, the Republican version is more dangerous because the party has taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when science disagrees with its ideology."

Great find and thanks for posting it, etherealtruth. Bookmarked.

[etherealtruth]

18. It rings rather true

[pnwmom]

26. Industry, abetted by its paid scientists, has a long history of hiding

the damage it does to the environment, so progressives have a reason to be suspicious.

[Locrian]

33. and

and of thinking "we know what we're doing - what could go wrong?"

Which, yes, is not *really* supposed to be the 'scientific method'. But risk analysis always seems to be the last thing in peoples minds that see $$$ from the new 'scientific discovery'.

[Locrian]

19. I get your concern...

And I do agree that some is dangerous...

That said - what *also* bothers me is the tendency for people to follow the herd in terms of trusting the 'information cascade' without actually doing the research. That applies to "woo" *and* to "mainstream" stuff too.

Anyone who reads a story on a 'study' that says to the effect "*they* say this...." w/o researching

a) who did the study
b) who benefits from the study
c) what did the ACTUAL study say

is just as guilty as a 'woo believer'. There are too many people blindly following authority just as much as following woo. And too many pretending to be 'scientific' w/o doing even a basic review of the data. (disclaimer - not all, but a significant number are using argument by authority).

[Locut0s]

20. This is true...

Just cause a paper was written and a study done does not make it good science nor should the findings just be swallowed as truth.

[Locrian]

24. exactly - thanks for getting it

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 09:29 AM - Edit history (2)

The 'scientific method' is supposed to accomplish this: you have to verify the data etc. So it *can* be valid, just have to do your homework, and recognize that there is always uncertainty.

I don't think humans do well with

a) statistics
b) non-linear patterns
c) feedback

let alone 'chaotic' type behavior that has different stabilities or states

So even in 'scientific' reporting it's easy for people to misunderstand or be (sometimes intentionally) confused by those with an agenda.

(sorry for the sidetrack)

[etherealtruth]

30. Your points a,b,and c are very valid and extremely important

The problem I have seen here is that well respected, peer reviewed work (often coming out of highly respected universities) is being jeered at by some (many?).

All sides need to take a close look at what they are criticizing and make sure they even understand what is being discussed and what the actual conclusions are.

I despise "woo", but may classify what is and what is not woo differently than others. All alternative therapies are not woo in my mind ... there are a number that have some proven efficacy ... but, I want to see evidence of the efficacy. When the opposite is true and reputable study after study indicates that a treatment (supplement, therapy ... ) is ineffective (or worse, dangerous) I am going to pass.

[BrainDrain]

23. Woo is just.....

science without all the funny symbols and numbers. Think of it as the world represented in water colors and not oils.

[pnwmom]

27. Then acupuncture is not "woo," despite the repeated claims here.

29 studies involving 18,000 participants show that it is effective in reducing pain.

[jeff47]

54. The "woo" in acupuncture is the attempts to explain how it works.

There's lots of claims about why acupuncture works. Usually it involves something pretty metaphysical.

Problem is acupuncture works whether or not the practitioner is trained in where to put the needles. Meaning there isn't some complex, Qi system or "triggering the right nerves". If there were, putting the needles in the wrong places would fail.

Acupuncture "works" the same way that placebos work - in drug trials, a significant portion of the people taking placebos claim the drug cured their problem. That's why a drug is considered to work when it exceeds a placebo's effectiveness.

So if acupuncture works for you, that's fine. But that doesn't mean the story behind acupuncture and how it works is true.

[pnwmom]

71. The western doctors who use it acknowledge they don't know how or why it works.

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

But the fact that they don't understand why it works does not make it woo. The same thing is true of a lot of accepted practices of western medicine.

One of my relatives has a serious, chronic medical condition. She has been offered more than one possible conventional treatment by highly respected doctors, who have explained that they don't know why it works, but it does. This isn't unusual, even within western medicine. When a drug is past patent protection, drug companies won't pay to do the research, so doctors acquire their own evidence. Anecdotally.

[jeff47]

77. Again, the woo is the attempts to explain how it works.

Just like I said above.

[klook]

28. The biggest UFO nuts I've met

were all Republicans.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. It's not just a "left" thing

My uncle just became a hardcore teabagger and now he's into all this Edgar Cayce crap as well to try and cure his ailments. There are plenty of people on the left and right who refuse to believe anything that upsets their world view.

[LanternWaste]

32. Politics... the greatest woo of them all.

Politics... the greatest woo of them all.

[ZombieHorde]

53. Ha! I think you may be right.

People have been convinced that borders, genders, laws, rights, value, etc., etc., are all real things. Even many so called skeptics believe in this nonsense.

[Romulox]

34. You are not a doctor. NOBODY asked you for medical advice.

[stevenleser]

37. I agree. I think one of the big problems is that...

... there have been a few cases where what was perceived as 'woo' turned out to be true.

But that does not justify the mountains of woo out there. I agree that the left as an entity, from the farthest left to the centrist variety should strive to be a fact based and pro-scientific method group.

Leave the woo and myth and superstition to the right.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. What is wrong is the obsession some have with

needing to prove people wrong, embarrass people, bully people into not believing what they believe or prevent people from having the freedom to believe what they want to believe. You can disagree. You can even provide evidence for why you disagree, but then let it go. Let people decide for themselves and let them believe what they are going to believe. Liberals seem to think that we should have freedom just so long as you agree with them. If you don't agree with them then all of a sudden your freedom goes right out the window. If people try to prevent people from having the freedom to believe what they want to believe then those people are no better then the right when they try to take people's freedom away.

[Voice for Peace]

61. I rec this post.

live and let live!

[Humanist_Activist]

70. I would agree if I didn't think they were helping to perpetuate frauds...

also I think the snake oil salesmen themselves are preying on people who are vulnerable for their money. I'm an activist against con artists, no more, no less.

Not to mention some of the people who forgo evidence based medicine for "alternatives" are parents, and frankly their kids need to be protected from their stupidity.

[Sheldon Cooper]

41. I'm surprised that you can make the leap to "anti-scientific" for people who embrace alternative

medicine. I don't do alternative medicine myself, but with a few small exceptions, I don't see those who use it as being "anti-scientific'. I think that conclusion is facile. I think that most of those who use alternatives will also use traditional medicine as the situation requires.

[LeftishBrit]

57. Fair enough

It's not the use of alternative medicine (or anything that one chooses, or makes one feel better) as such that is anti-science, but the wholesale rejection of 'Western' medicine on principle.

[Voice for Peace]

62. yes. thankyou.

[thesquanderer]

42. Why shocked at woo on the left?

re: "As etherealtruth points out this really is a bipartisan issue. I think what I'm getting at is I'm simply more shocked at the anti scientific side on the left. "

Why? I think a scientific bent vs. let's say a more spiritual/metaphysical bent, is not something that necessarily aligns with politics. One's thoughts about how society should take care of the less fortunate, or civil liberties, or gun control, or tax policy, or whether we should go to war, have very little to do with whether you put stock in any kind of "non proven" beliefs, whether it's Jesus, astrology, some alternative medicine practice, or anything else. I think you're on to something with your post further down about observer bias, in the sense of seeming to think that those who think the way you do in some respects should logically think the way you do in others.

And I think "new age" thinking has always been common on the left, at least going back to the hippies. Maybe it was all the drugs. But also there is a fundamental philosophical orientation, I think, that "conservative" people believe in the "tried and true" while "liberal" people are "open to possibilities" - and this perspective, I think, might support the presence of "woo" on the left.

[polichick]

48. Einstein (a pretty cool scientist): "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious...

It is the source of all true art and science."


What you see as "anti scientific" is an illusion - open your mind.

[gcomeau]

64. For cripes sake...

That was not an endorsement of pseudoscientific nonsense.

[polichick]

80. For cripes sake, nobody said it was. Think harder.

[FarCenter]

51. The left is more idealistic and chafes at the constraints of reality

The left would like to think that if something can be imagined, then it can actually happen or be made to happen.

Science often limits the implementation of ideas by introducing physical, economic or organizational constraints.

Furthermore, science is authoritarian and not very democratic. Scientists do not actually vote on which theory they would like to be correct.

Lastly, the application of science to society usually requires large organizations, capital, and operation -- typically corporations and government bureaucracies. These are viewed with hostility.

[Vashta Nerada]

55. Woo is literally killing people.

How many child deaths is Jenny McCarthy indirectly responsible for?

[LeftishBrit]

56. I don't think it's a predominantly left-wing attitude at all

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 06:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Depends what you mean by 'woo', of course. I don't tend to use the term. However, it is often used to refer to anti-science attitudes and/or the wholesale rejection of modern 'western' medicine and especially of vaccinations.

Some people on the left do hold such attitudes; but in my experience and observation, the people most likely to promote them are right-libertarians and/or extreme upholders of the religious right and 'traditional values' (anti-vaccination views in fact are common to the Right of several religions).

In fact, my biggest concern about left-wingers who do have such views is not that they have them, but that some of them as a result are prepared to endorse right-wing individuals and sources.

[Voice for Peace]

59. My opinion.. the right has way more woo, just a different sort.

don't worry about the lefties you don't agree with.

[etherealtruth]

65. Not just more ... but, widely accepted!

[Xithras]

66. Woo isn't specific to a party. Just ignore the nutters.

The difference between left-woo and right-woo is tolerance. Right wing woo demands that you accept it as reality. Left wing woo generally doesn't give a crap if you "believe" or not.

I live in a reality-based world, hold multiple science degrees, and tend to view most woo as the product of poor educational standards, but I can tolerate left-woo more than right-woo because it isn't so "in your face". If left-woo believers start insisting that we teach reincarnation and chakras in our biology courses, I'll reconsider that opinion. Until then, I don't really care what others believe. And neither should you. One of the core principles of liberalism is tolerance and acceptance of differing opinions. You don't have to accept their beliefs as valid or having ANY grounding in the real world, but as a liberal you DO have to accept their right to hold those beliefs if they choose.

[laundry_queen]

90. Good post. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. I don't think liberals are any more prone to woo.

Where conservatives believe in fundamentalist religion, our tastes are a little less authoritarian.

[madfloridian]

78. Oh good grief, stop with the woo!!! Will hide any post I see with that word.

It's a word that is quickly wearing out it's welcome.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. Let me offer you a slightly different view of this

and I know precisely what threads you are talking about.

That is the literal bleeding edge of science. My cousin happens to be in the field, no, not of life after death, but advanced particle physics. So unfortunately at funerals, and shive's we've had some fascinating conversations on string theory, the holographic universe and yes, consciousness as part of the physical world and Quantum Theory.

We simply do not know, what happens after death. We know one essential principle of physics is that information is not lost. If it is, it violates every principle we know of modern physics. Just as energy is preserved, so is information. Some folks have a problem believing this is possible, but it is an accepted principle of modern physics. And yes, it includes your and my memories.

Now soul, and it's existence, that is for theologians to discuss. Science (and the bleeding edge) has nothing to say on heaven or hell, or god (there are a few caveats on the last one) for that matter.

Consciousness, on the other hand, is very much now part of the discussions in Quantum Mechanics, and how it functions. See, that might be essential for the universe to be described and intelligence might be the way the universe expresses it's consciousness and identity. God, I told there were caveats, might be the way we find comfort in the universe, and it is fully a creation of this consciousness. Nor, in reality, is it limited to humans. If everything we know is correct about life and it's rise, we are not alone, we just have not found that out definitely yet. And yet is the operative term and when we do, that will be on the level of the discovery of fire.

Now to the research done by Parker. If you carefully listen to the interview he was clear. While he believes that life after death is possible, this is not a testable hypothesis, unless you are a philosopher. He has nothing to say about the soul. That is for philosophers and theologians. But he has interviewed these kids, and transcribed fifty years of research, of kids with memories not of Napoleon, or Mary Antoinette, or any of these easy to find about people, but of pretty obscure characters. The kids had no logical way to be exposed to them. They were not even related.

So if these kids are relaying memories of events that they had no way to know, or their families for that matter, it is proper to ask what the fuck is going on? And if consciousness is real, as modern bleeding edge Physics now believes it is, and it needs a brain to express itself in a way that you and I will get it, well, it is not that crazy. Though it is truly at the very edge of science.

Suffice it to say, at one time leading edge science said that the world was not at the center of the universe, and a few people, like oh Francesco Bruno, died for that belief, which at the time was called heresy by the church. Nor did they have a good solid way to test it, so under the modern definition of the scientific method, it might as well have been called woo. Then we had another who said things lived in water and were the origin of disease and we should boil milk. Oh he was thought off as nuts, until he came up with a rabies vaccine. Are you saying that science should not go to the edge because you are afraid of woo? Suffice it to say, leading edge science tends to rarely pan out, when it does, it is what Kuhn called "the Nature of a Scientific Revolution." My friend, I believe we are really on the border of one of those due to the nature of the research we are doing in both astronomy and physics.

And yes, Quantum Mechanics, with things like entanglement, is directly related to the quantum brain and consciousness. Oh and many scientists, while will not admit it, are also pretty much philosophers. Just listen to COSMOS, for example. There is plenty of that in Sagan's presentation. You don't believe me? Listen to Adam Greene speak about the universe. And those are just two examples.

[pnwmom]

91. And the other physics theory that is so interesting

is the idea that our whole world might be a hologram . . . but that idea makes my head explode.

I also read Kuhn's book in college and it changed forever the way I think about science. Clearly, most of the "science is science" people here can only conceive of ordinary, day-to-day incremental increases in scientific knowledge. There's no room for real breakthroughs or creativity in their vision.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. I have re-read that one a few times

and IMHO, from talking with young 'uns in Physics, we may very well be at the dawn of another one of those revolutions.

I also have the feeling that some people treat science (which is an amazing thought) as if it was another religion, unchanging and with true dogma in it. So anything on the bleeding edge really is heresy.

[pnwmom]

93. Yes! I was just writing something about that yesterday.

I was wondering if it was a coincidence that so many of those who constantly decry "woo" are also atheists. It's as if they don't believe in God so they have to deify scientists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. I have no doubt that god does not exist

but I also know science is a constantly changing entity. Hell, some of my best friends are in the sciences and have no use for God.

That said, we are also starting to understand that God might be critical for species survival, even if at this point it might be mal adaptive. And that yes, there is something called the God Particle. (Speaking of weird stuff to rival the holographic universe)

No, my theory is more basic than that, and it includes plenty of very religious people who have literal cows when changes occur in religion. See the uber conservative catholics and Pope Francis for example. People are used to things just the way they are, and change is uncomfortable. So while they claim that science is great and needs to be understood, they also know everything, meaning all that is within comfortable edges. So once these same crazy scientists start going into areas that are on the edge, NOOO, that gotta be WOO. It is a reaction to change. I hope I never lose my sheer amazement at all that we know, but chiefly all that we really don't.

The more you learn, the more you know you don't know.

[pnwmom]

95. "The more you learn, the more you know you don't know."

Absolutely. (If there are any absolutes.)

[FarCenter]

96. When I turn off my computer where does the information stored in RAM go?

I am under the impression that the information is lost. Ask your cousin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Not at the quantum level

Which is what makes all this so damn fascinating. But hey, to each their own. To me science is fascinating, and hardly "written in stone."

By the way the research being done into this is one that even Carl Sagan was interested in. I admit, it is also great for fiction fodder.

[Quixote1818]

97. I think questioning if money is influencing science is fair game but beliefs that fly in the face

of what is clearly good science put some here close to the intellectual level of those over at FR. They are usually those who believe things that are "natural" are always better than things created in the lab. It's a prejudice they seem to be ingrained with that wont allow them to look at the scientific results in an unbiased manor.