From Scott Adams Claim that you heard of a cure for baldness, cancer and old age.
Dumb people will assume that you are highly qualified to dispense medical advice, especially if you say you tried something and it worked, or you saw it on Oprah. Then they’ll drop on all fours and scurry out to the backyard to begin the cure. Smart people will ask you what scientific evidence you have to back up your ridiculous claim.
Smart Person: What evidence do you have of your claim?
Me: What evidence do you have of anything you think you know.
Believe ... as in "most people in previous eras believed in higher powers"
TAKEAWAYS
Most people have high expectations of science. They “believe” in science, just as most people in previous eras believed in higher powers. There is a widespread expectation that science will find a way.
https://pmidotcom3-prd.s3.amazonaws.com ... a845efb4_2 The survey was fielded among general population adults ages 21 and older in 19 countries and territories: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:03 amBelieve ... as in "most people in previous eras believed in higher powers"
TAKEAWAYS
Most people have high expectations of science. They “believe” in science, just as most people in previous eras believed in higher powers. There is a widespread expectation that science will find a way.
https://pmidotcom3-prd.s3.amazonaws.com ... a845efb4_2 The survey was fielded among general population adults ages 21 and older in 19 countries and territories: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.
As a recent example, the rapid development of a vaccine for Covid 19 does seem to confirm that "faith" in science.
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 am
Very often I hear British people say “I’m not religious. I believe in Science”, which makes me cringe every time I hear it. Why do people believe in a method? Does it even make sense to say that? Why do people think that abstract theories and facts that only ever help with problem solving can grant meaning? True, science can aid in our understanding, but why do people take it as THE way to understand reality in the U.K. and the west at large?
They know little of real science and scientific method, so these people believe in Scientism as a religion.
People need simplified explanations of reality, cultural cohesion and optimistic outlook - and Scientism serves these purposes. As a religion, it won over Christianity in the West.
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 am
Very often I hear British people say “I’m not religious. I believe in Science”, which makes me cringe every time I hear it. Why do people believe in a method? Does it even make sense to say that? Why do people think that abstract theories and facts that only ever help with problem solving can grant meaning? True, science can aid in our understanding, but why do people take it as THE way to understand reality in the U.K. and the west at large?
They know little of real science and scientific method, so these people believe in Scientism as a religion.
People need simplified explanations of reality, cultural cohesion and optimistic outlook - and Scientism serves these purposes. As a religion, it won over Christianity in the West.
I don't think Scientism is a widespread phenomenon. What we're actually seeing is an increasingly secular society, where religion has decreasing relevance.
That reminds me, I must buy some new candles for my Richard Dawkins shrine.
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 am
Very often I hear British people say “I’m not religious. I believe in Science”, which makes me cringe every time I hear it. Why do people believe in a method? Does it even make sense to say that? Why do people think that abstract theories and facts that only ever help with problem solving can grant meaning? True, science can aid in our understanding, but why do people take it as THE way to understand reality in the U.K. and the west at large?
They know little of real science and scientific method, so these people believe in Scientism as a religion.
People need simplified explanations of reality, cultural cohesion and optimistic outlook - and Scientism serves these purposes. As a religion, it won over Christianity in the West.
I don't think Scientism is a widespread phenomenon. What we're actually seeing is an increasingly secular society, where religion has decreasing relevance.
That reminds me, I must buy some new candles for my Richard Dawkins shrine.
I don't know how widespread it is, but I think it's important. We do worship its offspring Technology and pay abeyance to its gods. And at the same time, there is a backlash in the form of Flat Earth, Reptilian Overlords and the New Age. As well as the resurgent fundamentalism in religions across the world.
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:03 amBelieve ... as in "most people in previous eras believed in higher powers"
TAKEAWAYS
Most people have high expectations of science. They “believe” in science, just as most people in previous eras believed in higher powers. There is a widespread expectation that science will find a way.
https://pmidotcom3-prd.s3.amazonaws.com ... a845efb4_2 The survey was fielded among general population adults ages 21 and older in 19 countries and territories: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.
As a recent example, the rapid development of a vaccine for Covid 19 does seem to confirm that "faith" in science.
People need simplified explanations of reality, cultural cohesion and optimistic outlook - and Scientism serves these purposes. As a religion, it won over Christianity in the West.
I don't think Scientism is a widespread phenomenon. What we're actually seeing is an increasingly secular society, where religion has decreasing relevance.
That reminds me, I must buy some new candles for my Richard Dawkins shrine.
I don't know how widespread it is, but I think it's important. We do worship its offspring Technology and pay abeyance to its gods. And at the same time, there is a backlash in the form of Flat Earth, Reptilian Overlords and the New Age. As well as the resurgent fundamentalism in religions across the world.
I suspect these problems partly result from a failure to recognise that science and religion have different fields of enquiry.
So for example the Buddhist suttas are religious texts, and should not be read like science text-books.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:47 am
As a recent example, the rapid development of a vaccine for Covid 19 does seem to confirm that "faith" in science.
Yes besides medicines and medical technology also the internet, i.e. this forum and all everyday technical items used without awareness that science is their cause. So science may create optimum living conditions but of course science can not eliminate ignorance ... which is why it may also be wrongly applied or ignored.
Last edited by SteRo on Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Science and Buddhism overlap for a while since a study in Wisconsin proved Tibetan monks with about 10,000 hours of meditation experience were off the charts for producing gamma brain waves while being hooked up to an electro thing. What they were meditating on was not empathy or sympathy but unconditional love this proves that scientifically speaking happiness can be measured and Matheu Ricard a French born Tibetan monk is the happiest man in the world. My point is that if people heard Tibetan monks are calm and happy they would be like oh cool good for them. But when you read this study it's kind of like omg maybe I should start doing loving kindness meditation.
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.
befriend wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:55 am
Science and Buddhism overlap for a while since a study in Wisconsin proved Tibetan monks with about 10,000 hours of meditation experience were off the charts for producing gamma brain waves while being hooked up to an electro thing. What they were meditating on was not empathy or sympathy but unconditional love this proves that scientifically speaking happiness can be measured and Matheu Ricard a French born Tibetan monk is the happiest man in the world. My point is that if people heard Tibetan monks are calm and happy they would be like oh cool good for them. But when you read this study it's kind of like omg maybe I should start doing loving kindness meditation.
befriend wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:55 am
Science and Buddhism overlap for a while since a study in Wisconsin proved Tibetan monks with about 10,000 hours of meditation experience were off the charts for producing gamma brain waves while being hooked up to an electro thing. What they were meditating on was not empathy or sympathy but unconditional love this proves that scientifically speaking happiness can be measured and Matheu Ricard a French born Tibetan monk is the happiest man in the world. My point is that if people heard Tibetan monks are calm and happy they would be like oh cool good for them. But when you read this study it's kind of like omg maybe I should start doing loving kindness meditation.
These studies don't evidence anything but that brain waves depend on mental (non-)activities. It's the interpretation that makes propaganda. But interpretation is not evidenced at all by the mere measurements.
Tibetan buddhists have shown cleverness to (mis-)use scientific theories for propaganda purposes addressed to western science believers. They even (mis-)used physics to "prove" madhyamaka.
SteRo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:39 pm
These studies don't evidence anything but that brain waves depend on mental (non-)activities. It's the interpretation that makes propaganda. But interpretation is not evidenced at all by the mere measurements.
Tibetan buddhists have shown cleverness to (mis-)use scientific theories for propaganda purposes addressed to western science believers. They even (mis-)used physics to "prove" madhyamaka.
befriend wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:55 am
Science and Buddhism overlap for a while since a study in Wisconsin proved Tibetan monks with about 10,000 hours of meditation experience were off the charts for producing gamma brain waves while being hooked up to an electro thing. What they were meditating on was not empathy or sympathy but unconditional love this proves that scientifically speaking happiness can be measured and Matheu Ricard a French born Tibetan monk is the happiest man in the world. My point is that if people heard Tibetan monks are calm and happy they would be like oh cool good for them. But when you read this study it's kind of like omg maybe I should start doing loving kindness meditation.
These studies don't evidence anything but that brain waves depend on mental (non-)activities. It's the interpretation that makes propaganda. But interpretation is not evidenced at all by the mere measurements.
Tibetan buddhists have shown cleverness to (mis-)use scientific theories for propaganda purposes addressed to western science believers. They even (mis-)used physics to "prove" madhyamaka.
physics prove madhyamaka or other way around or what is ur take on this?
confusedlayman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:16 pm
physics prove madhyamaka or other way around or what is ur take on this?
You should work on your reading weakness. Often you are asking about what has been written as if that which has been written had not been written. So the answer to your question would be just to repeat what has been written but which for reasons not known has caused perplexity on your side.
On the other hand there might be a writing weakness on my side involved since english is not my mother language and there sometimes are connotations of irony involved that I miss to make explicit. But in the present case the should make implicitly explicit what I wanted to express
