The father of modern neurosurgery, Wilder Penfield, did some experiment and changed his opinion to accepting that there is a mind brain duality. Google it if you want, I have forgotten the details of his experiments that changed his lifetime paradigm where he often ridiculed mind brain duality theory. Also there are other evidences that support the concept or theory of mind brain duality. Most scientists reject it, being secular and I would suggest they also protect their career by giving any reference to religion a very wide berth when speaking about scientific projects, work or publishing research. I don't blame them seeing as how biased against spirituality etc some science and scientists are/is. Of course I my day job is religious in nature and so I can say without fear of peer ridicule that a duality seems a better explanation than current mainstream secular biological theory. In fact self awareness, sentience is a mystery to science. Its seat, where it originates from in the brain has not been found. So my belief is half an educated guess, if you want to call it that and a quarter scientific, the other quarter? God did it..ha ha ~ reva
Yes primarily Physics is where the constipation is ha ha~ The other sciences are progressing and advancing like light speed on steroids ...The dark ages quip is if all our physics is incorrect, ie not being able to merge quantum theory with the big stuff... ever. reva
Confused why either the theologians and/or anti-theologians are doing victory laps. The purpose of Science is to discover, explore and explain...it's purpose is not to discredit religion. Science seeks truth...if a religious tenant happens to be disproved along the way, for example evolution disproving Genesis...this certainly is not the sole purpose of science. No doubt this is a great discovery as the Higgs-Boson particle reinforces the Standard Model, which explains matter as we know it. Folks are forgetting... matter only makes up 4% of the observable Universe. The rest – dark matter and dark energy – may prove even harder to pin down. 96% of the observable Universe remains unexplained. Human beings don't "know everything"...far from it, and the wheels of Science should and must keep turning. This is merely another piece of the immense jigsaw puzzle we call our Universe. Faith and Reason can certainly co-exist. The person who developed the Big Bang theory was a Jesuit priest...and person of Science. The validation of the Higgs-Boson particle supports this theory...
What tools? The tools are limited by the disagreement between classical and quantum mechanics. The black hole "end card" is irrelevant. There is still a great deal that science is discovering at the moment (I suggest a subscription to Science News Daily). People have called for the end of discovery so many times, and they were wrong. As you very likely are.
Rev, I believe that theoretical science jumped way ahead of practical science over the last century. Once practical science catches up, it will mean that more people will be working closer to these "bigger" questions we all have, instead of just the chosen few who don't seem to be getting anywhere. Naturally, we have to find more practical uses for quantum mechanics and our knowledge of the standard model... some little tricks to make these theories ready for primetime. Then we can really start to get to the bottom of it. It's a slow process though. We have learned so much so fast that it's difficult to find ways to use all that knowledge. God did it will always be an option. No new breakthroughs can support or poke holes in that belief. Until man acquires immortality and omniscience, science will just keep on looking for new ways to achieve those goals, chipping off piece by tiny piece.
But the problems are merely conceptual. The mathematics works just fine and that's really what physics is all about. It's not all incorrect as the accuracy of modern physics theories can be demonstrated. Tying those results together conceptually is the difficult part. But I don't see why that must necessitate a complete overhaul of physics. A new, comprehensive theory might only require the inclusion of a few extra constants in the equations.
Any one truly interested in science should check this forum out, physicsforums.com. I would hardly say these are the dark ages, in fact we are on the threshold of even more understanding! Science is not at odds with God, some religious folks seem to be at odds with science. Pity.
I read that forum but I'd never have the guts to post with those guys! Much more comfortable here among the other laypeople like myself!
Religion ...at odds with reality and can be obstructive of progress. I have read certain ancient secret societies were only formed to foster and share development in an environment necessarily protected from abuse by religious zealots. Burn the witch RA, burn the witch...
Do you even understand the "current mainstream secular biological theory" that you're rejecting? Consciousness is a mystery only because of the sheer complexity of the brain and the rest of the nervous system. There is a LOT going on there to be worked out. However, we do know that alterations to the brain lead to alterations in personality, and that thought is related to electrical and chemical activity in that organ. This much is observable and proven. If you're going to believe in some duality, you have to at least define what the other half is to begin with! What besides the brain and its observed activity can account for the mind? Where do you think it's even necessary? I see no reason for the brain not being capable of maintaining a consciousness. It works collectively, all of its various bits, to create a mosaic whole that is analogous to what our computers do, using their various little bits to create a mosaic of activity for the purposes of the user (plus for its own internal purposes).
I agree that most of the low hanging fruit has been picked. This leads to some really bad science by those who are more interested in establishing a reputation rather than performing good science. However, I dont see that we are in a dark age of science. We just have to be vigilant against psudoscience.
Actually, quantum theory is the small stuff. But if particle physics is completely solved, then doesn't that really just open the door to quantum theory?
I for one do. Religion seems to pride itself on being obstinate and never changing And likewise on being faith-based rather than fact- & reason-based. You can keep it
While I'm sure using global warming as an example will bring in the faithful. One part of it dendroclimatology kind of proves my point. Put yourself in the shoes of a young Dr. Micheal Mann. You are young and ambitious. You have chosen an area of study dendroclimatology and begun your career on the theory that trees can be used to determine past temperature. You invest years of time in developing a method to determine past temperature from tree rings. Now what happens if you cant make it work? What happens if your initial assumption is wrong and trees aren't very good temperature proxies? Do you admit failure and throw away years of work dooming yourself to a life of mediocrity? Or do you cheat? While coming out and saying that trees aren't' good temperature proxies might be a good thing for science as a whole its not good for you personally. For you it is personally ruinous. A lot of science begins by going down a path based on theory not fact. While falsification of theory may be great for science it is often very bad for the scientist if the scientist staked his career on the theory being correct. This comes down to the good and bad of specialization in modern science. In the past the great thinkers like Einstein and Newton could afford to be wrong on somethings because they were every eclectic. Newton could afford to fail at making an alchemists stone because he succeed in so many other areas of science. Today a specialized scientist cannot afford to admit failure without risking the falsification of their entire chosen field which would doom their entire career.
Admitting failure or publishing rather unspectacular results is a part of everyday life in science. That doesn't doom careers. When you're at the edge of human knowledge, failure is much more common than success. If you cannot accept failure as a scientist, you've chosen the wrong profession. On the other hand, falsification of data is completely unacceptable and deservedly the end of a scientific career. No matter how ambitious a scientist you are, you have to be pretty stupid to try that. The more spectacular your fraudulent results are, the faster your lack of integrity will be discovered because others will want to ride along on your wave of success. No, any sane scientist knows that fraud marks the beginning of the end of any scientific career. Unless someone pays you very well and/or offers you a job outside the academic world as a reward for publishing fraudulent results, a thinking scientist won't go down that route of academic doom.
I wish I had your optimism but the studies of studies that I have read make it quite clear that scientists on the whole are afraid to come back to the people who financed their studies and conclude that they found nothing. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 "Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28]."
But science is also built upon peer review. If the guy's making stuff up, that will come out eventually. This is why science works.
No that is not the way science works. The false perception of what peer review is another problem that has come up in the global warming wars because the alarmist side has sold it for more than it is. All peer review does is check for errors and determine if the subject matter is worth publishing. Thats it. It is not designed to catch malfiesence. It is based on the assumption that the author is being honest. Also much of the controls in the scientific method are based on an outdated version of science. The scientific method only works if science is still eclectic. Today science is all about chosen fields. When we say that only experts in a specific field may have an opinion on the science being performed in that field the scientific method breaks down. No one within a field is going to admit that their field is psudoscience. Without the involvement of the scientific body as a whole the scientific method does not work.
This is precisely why I think we need education reform. WTF happened to the guy in the first paragraph? Questioning integrity is great and all but doing it through a 'political' lens is like peeing on the toilet seat after you've put it up. <<< horrible analogy man just wrecked another topic. The precautions are already in place. It's a hypothesis that leads a scientist down their path...not a theory. The theory is how they describe the testing they've done, there's a big difference. I agree with you, science is all about failure. The most effective way to figure out what works is by figuring out what doesn't work, lest ye be subject to confirmation bias <<< not one single spelling error squiggly line in there...who TF is editing the spellchecker...King James the VI? But when we talk about 'career' and 'field' those are really just euphemisms for money. 'That field' has nothing to do with discovery, politically it implies money. Can't we just separate the two, or will they forever be linked going forward? If money discovers money what truth do we have in that?
It's based upon hard data and repeatability of results. If there's a lie of any sort being put out, it will be found out. It may not happen right away, but it will eventually. Count on it. Hm, this is an interesting point, though I doubt it's as segregated between fields today as you're letting on. Also, not everyone in a given field will protect something they know is bunk or whatever. I think you're being overly paranoid about it. We've just had the hottest early summer months on record, by the way. If you're calling global warming pseudoscience, I hope you'll reconsider.
And when we scientists proved the existance of Higgs boson field and like particle the whiole god nuttyness metaphysics was dealt a FATAL BLOW,because it explains how INDEED nothing becomes Something ,of course the underdeveloped puny metaphysics brained individual can't understand that the Universe exists as opposits or Dialectically.Philoshophically the problem is the agnostic backsliding to God. Hey,has anyone seen the snap shot of God in the super collider at CERN.Higgs boson the God killing particle ,now explains what caused the big bang and how matter itself comes into existance ,sorry couldn't fit god in but it dosen't exist proven by science NOT TO EXIST! or are they going to say that 'god created the higgs boson'? the "scientists" that attempted to stop the latest series of experiments through the European courts ,were the creationist school of stupidity,saying that a "Black hole that could swallow the Earth ' is what happens when you add god to scientific equations ,YOU ALWAYS LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT AFTER THE EXPERIMENT !ROFL! And all the new questions and answers that will now emerge will truely deal God belief a mortal blow!
excuse me but all peer reveiw is done from the basis that the results are wrong ,its called the Sceptical method of science until proven to be objective knowledge then sceience it is not ,and for your information the Scientific method is in all fields of science ALL,and HAS NEVER BROKEN DOWN.It goes from triumph to triumph pushing primative human religious unthink aside ,Higgs Boson the god killing particle . you do know that science can describe the origins of all matter and energy now even before the big bang,oh dear oh my no god starting the big bang it was the higgs boson field and particle.Something litterally from nothing .and no god needed.sorry boo hoo science wins and god well DOSEN'T exist just ignorant thinking by God Nutter inclined metaphysics. BTW, the proof of my words is your own living experience ,everything that sorrounds you ,clothes you transports you is a product of SCIENCE ,cars , computers,electricty ,steam power ,telecommunications ,computers ect ect ect ,buildings ,bridges ,ect ect .......ALL PRODUCTS OF SCIENCE none down to God! Science proves itself in practice and theory God NEVER can and Never will as ,GOD DOSEN't EXIST Science PROVES SO! oh and science produced the Bible you slobber over,its called a printing Machine.And the printing process! P.S A chemist and a Psychologist use the same SCIENTIFC Methods to arrive at the at the answers to the questions that both arms of Science put to society ,yep SAME METHOD CALLED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD of Analysis ,and Practice .Science is a method of thinking which unlike all other lesser forms of human thinking has a wait for it ,OBJECTIVELY BASED METHOD THAT IS OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE OPUTSIDE WHO EVER THE INTIAL SCIENTIST THAT FIRST THOUGHT ABOUT THE ANSWER!OBJECTIVE not Subjective twaddle and of this thought or that in a scientists head. And then scioence keeps checking and rechecking its conclusions as knowledge like all things ion the UNIVERSE moves on in time becoming more and more exact in its calculations and approximations OVER TIME ,the onluy thing we a re told and some forced to believe that NEVER changes is the non-existant God.
