Link between religious fundamnetalism and brain damage found.

Meh, he is one of those guys people nut hug too much. Diagrams for quantum mechanics was a good idea. But he was one of those every electron is the same electron guys...which gave way to a whole lot of messy stuff that was wrong.

Think his perculiarities inteferred with his work.

 

I disagree because when you're teaching science at school you're indoctrinating and instilling "knowledge" into a younger generation.

See I think the problem is that this neolithic approach to modern science has been instilled in us for centuries now that unproven hypothesis and theoretical science has become reality to many many people. And those people believe if they were wrong, there'd be a number of people who would be out there to disprove them and since they can't find those people they continue believing what they've always been taught.

Thing is, those people are out there with their own scientific interpretations and knowledge, but the other group calls them "conspiracy theorists" which demeans and nullifies their work pretty much instantaneously. You know, they've got brain damage. Their presentations shut down because it goes against what's being taught, even though much of it has as much scientific validity as what's being taught.

If Michio Kaku proves that the earth doesn't move through space, which from my most recent research is still a very relevant subject, boy are there going to be some red faces and I believe in the future when it becomes a reality and certain that the universe is actually a magno-electric universe, then we will see gravity for what it always was. A completely fictitious, made up construct that has been instilled in teachings for long enough now that for most, it's an impossibility to look past. And that to me, is the true brain damage.

 

Can you provide a video or link to an article where Kaku hypothesizes that?

 

I believe it was in a documentary called "the principal" which of course was classed as pseudo-science and deemed too contraversial but many scientists. He also went on to explain how upset scientists get when their theories are off, even by a little bit. This instillment that "we can't be wrong because that's not what we were taught" mentality.

And I mean you see right there, a documentary too "controversial" publicly shamed and nullified yet had reputable phycisits etc. Now if thats not informational control.. I don't know what is.

Also look into sound resonance and frequency as a building block of the universe. It had to do with the earth being the centre of the universe and everything is moving outward away. Or something I can't remember now.

Tesla knew about it too. He asked us to think of the universe as energy, frequency and vibration. Not what they were pushing him to believe with "gravity".
Now that guy was pretty interesting, I've enjoyed reading about him.

But it was Koku that spun me because I'd seen that guy on heaps of documentaries before, so I was like a dog at attention when I heard that.

 

Kaku himself was probably one of the ones who repudiated the film. From the wiki on it...

 

For the record, I don't think they were 100% saying the earth doesn't move, that there was just enough evidence to suggest it's possible.
Which I don't think should be laughed off as improbable, if it's theoretically possible and their formulations say yes.

Anyway this is all my whackey brain damaged imagination speaking. I find it interesting.

 

I now have to look into the holographic moon theory. I don't believe it, but some of the footage is interesting

 

Speaking of brain damage, it's a logical fallacy to conclude that because some brain damaged people hold rigid beliefs that all or most people who hold rigid religious beliefs are brain damaged. Yet fans of the study keep touting it as though it does. What exactly is the point of bringing it up? What does it show that makes it interesting to folks on Hip Forums?

 

If this is (partially) directed towards me, my initial response to the op was kind of meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

The propaganda machine that is science has failed me, I can only view the abstract and don't have access to the full study. Without the ability to really analyze procedures, methods, limitations, etc. I'm hesitant to draw any bold conclusions.

 

Fair enough. I don't "nut hug" him though. You may have some points, I don't know enough of his work to know... I just liked his attitude that science doesn't take the magic/wonder out of things, it increases it... and such like.

 

For most, they are different domains, God residing in the realm of the supernatural, science residing in the realm of the natural, so their explanatory powers contradict each other at times.

An extreme example of religious beliefs is the Young Earth Creationists, you got these people suggesting the world is only thousands of years old, which contradicts the findings in science, placing the age of the world as billions of years old.


Most people seem like they reside somewhere in between and attempt to reconcile the two domains, sort of utility them in the aspects where they might contradict. If that gets them through the day, then kudos...

But I think your first sentence and second sentence highlight a troubling aspect to this reconciliation from a logical perspective, something which could be expanded upon if we question the existence of the supernatural.

You say "I have spiritual beliefs that are entirely unscientific". So what would it mean for something "scientifically proven" to disprove something that is "entirely unscientific"?

 

Sorry, I worded that badly. I have spiritual beliefs that are currently unsupported by any scientific evidence. But neither does anything disprove their possibility. I do not understand religious doctrines that believe things that have been scientifically disproved, such as the age of the planet or the non-existence of evolution. I don't really see how the way I believe in the divine COULD be scientifically disproved, because I don't have any rigid ideas about it. If, somehow, there was compelling scientific evidence that we don't, in any way, exist after death, I would accept that, even though at the moment I believe we do (exist after death). I'd have to rethink.

I don't have difficulty reconciling the two domains, because I don't think God is confined to the supernatural. My understanding of God is that It is Everything. I know how silly this sounds to you. I was an atheist most of my life. But even then, I'd look at Christians and wonder why they couldn't go with the idea that God created the Universe and set evolution in motion, why they had to believe in a literal seven day creation that went against scientific evidence. It didn't seem irreconcilable to me, that both were correct.

 

Gravity is a fictitious , made up construct? Huh. Never heard that one. Guess I don't get it.

 

That's exactly my point. Guess who's wrapped around their finger?

 

I think "supernatural" simply refers to something that doesn't seem to fit the paradigms of current scientific thinking. Even the supernatural can't be logically contradictory: no square triangles, or white blackness.

 

I think of science as being about rigorous empirical testing of falsifiable propositions. God would be an example of a proposition which is unfalsifiable, since no human could set up a test that God couldn't confound if (S)he wanted to. Of course, there's a less demanding concept of science that includes any orderly systematized study, which would include theology, interpretative history, and phenomenological approaches to myth and religion. In either case, Karen Armstrong draws a useful distinction between logos and mythos. Logos is reason, including science, that "helps us to function practically and effectively in the world, and it must therefore be closely in tune and reflect accurately the realities of the world around us." Mythos , on the other hand, concerns "the more difficult aspects of our humanity, about for which there are no easy answers"--for example, questions about meaning and morality. Science can't really answer questions like that--not now, and probably not ever, although it can provide information we can draw on in answering them.. This is because questions about meaning and value are outside the realm of science--at least the empirical, falsifiable kind. Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape) proposed to turn value questions into scientific questions by reducing them to measurable human wants. That attempt to solve the problem by redefinition requires people's willingness to go along with it, which so far they haven't.

You're correct that religious folks are notorious for overstepping their bounds and confusing mythos with logos--making factual statements about physical reality. Aztec theology, for example, taught that Huitzilopochtli, the sun god, was constantly in need of human tonali (life force or energy) in human hearts to sustain him. It's been estimated that 1% of the population was sacrificed to keep the sun from going out and to sustain the other Aztec deities. That was certainly a falsifiable proposition, but I imagine there would have been considerable resistance to any scientist who tried to convince an Aztec that this awful outcome wouldn't come about if the supply line of sacrifices wasn't kept up. Actually, that belief was supported by Aztec militarism and the warrior societies whose reason for existence was the procurement of sacrificial victims. As you know, I'm critical of Jordan Peterson's theories, but I basically agree with his contention (Maps of Meaning, 1999) that myths are formative archetypes shaping human perception, teaching us how to move from the chaos of mere existence to the order of productive behavior. He draws on empirical data to get there, but his work is loosely impressionistic.