[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

I was lately going through the Intelligent design poll thread, and looking at the attitude of certain scientists, I indeed dobt that science can really overtake religion. The reason for my such an opinion is because the attitude of these scientists differs very little from that of high priests in most religions.

With the difference, of course, that if you disagree with a scientist, and you can bring the goods to prove him wrong, even the cockiest of scientists will concede defeat of their theories and accept the results.
Religion don't do this. They don't seem to be mature enough to accept when they're wrong.
If you don't agree with them, you get stoned, bombed, put to the sword, etc.

[hallenrm]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

With the difference, of course, that if you disagree with a scientist, and you can bring the goods to prove him wrong, even the cockiest of scientists will concede defeat of their theories and accept the results.

Is it really true? Is this assertion has held out in the entire history of science!!!

[ronthepon]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

With the difference, of course, that if you disagree with a scientist, and you can bring the goods to prove him wrong, even the cockiest of scientists will concede defeat of their theories and accept the results.
Religion don't do this. They don't seem to be mature enough to accept when they're wrong.
If you don't agree with them, you get stoned, bombed, put to the sword, etc.

I agree to the second point fully and partially to the first.

When I was 10, my scripture teacher (yes I was in a missionary, place where they try to convert children of other religions to their own) used to beat the hell out of me if I asked questions.
And now when I point out basic points of error in my Bio teacher, who is a PhD he flares up like a phoenix!

[Boerseun]

Unfortunately, that's true. Scientists are also human, and prone to human mistakes. There are a few famous cases where renowned scientists have fudged the results of experiments in order to back their theories, because it's either a pride thing, or they were needed to impress their sponsors with the results in order not to lose research money.
That happens.

Fortunately, the way it works is that each and every scientific experiment must be repeatable in any lab anywhere in the world. And the results must match if the experiment was carried out the same way. The Michaelson-Morley experiment serves as a good example - if you can repeat the experiment the same way and obtain different results, then you'd force the scientific world to rethink many properties assigned to light and space. And nobody said it would be impossible - scientists say with a fair degree of certainty that you can repeat MM and get the same result, because that was the result of 100% of the repeats of MM after the first experiment. But you might just be the first to obtain different results, thereby throwing a lot of what we know out the window. Science will never reach the Final Answer (which might just be 42, by the way), and that's what's so cool about it!

You will get scientists fudging results to support their personal theories, but they soon get exposed via the peer review process.

[hallenrm]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Unfortunately, that's true. Scientists are also human, and prone to human mistakes. .....................Fortunately, the way it works is that each and every scientific experiment must be repeatable in any lab anywhere in the world. And the results must match if the experiment was carried out the same way. The Michaelson-Morley experiment serves as a good example - if you can repeat the experiment the same way and obtain different results, then you'd force the scientific world to rethink many properties assigned to light and space. And nobody said it would be impossible - scientists say with a fair degree of certainty that you can repeat MM and get the same result, because that was the result of 100% of the repeats of MM after the first experiment. But you might just be the first to obtain different results, thereby throwing a lot of what we know out the window. Science will never reach the Final Answer (which might just be 42, by the way), and that's what's so cool about it!

That's all very true for experimental science. But, all science is not only experimental. Often scientists advance theories, say the string theory or the Hubble's constant. That are not amenable to experiments.

How does scientific methodology and heirarchy reacts in such cases. The constitution of science is beautiful, but only in theory. In practice there are many loopholes; there is seldom any real transparency. Sychophancy and nepotism is as rampant in the establishment of science as elsewhere.

[Boerseun]

I see your point Hallen, but you should keep in mind that everything unproven, like String Theory, is only that - a theory.

String theory goes from the assumption that different particles are simply different vibration patterns of fundamental units that can be imagined as 'strings'. Where String Theory does gain momentum is in the predictions it makes, and in its internal consistency. It doesn't make it final, though, and could be replaced any day by a more comprehensive theory making predictions that comes closer to observed phenomena. Granted, the fact that they start from an assumption is a weakness, but the amazing predictions made by it gives it some authority, if only mathematically. Matter of fact, it is also conjectured that they aren't even 'strings', but shapeless, dimensionless particles, where the vibration gives rise to observed dimensions.

There are branches and sub-branches of different fields of Science which is way over my head, which I won't even pretend to understand. The instinct is there to believe in an understandable description of Nature, but that doesn't make it necessarily so, and that same instinct serves as a wellspring for antagonism against science. And that is sad, but true.

[hallenrm]

A very honest admission Boerseun! I really admire you for that.

Now that we have travelled together in the world of thoughts so far together, tell me if such is the case why do scientist dismiss spirituality so easily.

Why do we dismiss telepathy point blank, isn't it possible that it is a theory that needs different methods to prove?

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

A very honest admission Boerseun! I really admire you for that.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by hallenrm

...tell me if such is the case why do scientist dismiss spirituality so easily.

Science isn't 'dismissing' spirituality easily, or at all. What Science is saying to 'spirituality' proponents, is "bring the evidence, let's test it, and see what the results say". Spirituality have failed to do so. You shouldn't be blaming Science for spirituality's lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Why do we dismiss telepathy point blank, isn't it possible that it is a theory that needs different methods to prove?

Telepathy have been tested extensively, for years, now. There is not a single shred of evidence supporting it. If you believe there is, or you can prove it, go to www.randi.org and buy me a beer with the million bucks you get if you can prove it. Not to say there might not be a novel new way of testing for it - but if you can come up with a way that's scientifically sound, go for it! Just lemme know if you succeed!

[hallenrm]

Sounds very splendid indeed and believe me I do believe in you and your good attitude, but my experience with many scientists tends me not to be so optimistic!

Here are the reasons!

To collect proofs in present day science is not very cheap. One needs huge investment and most state organizations would not care to fund any such research because they are biased against these so called non scientific pursuits.

But, suppose one succeeds in finding the funds, spiritual organizations and gurus are floating on funds, thanks to the ordeals modern capitalists society puts on very many people, who then seek the refuge of spirituality, and then suppose one collects some kind of proof too, will the scientific establishment accept it. No, it will conveniently look the other way, and just refuse to see the validity of the experiments. There is a vested interest of many big moneybags in keeping the status quo. For example, even though the practice Yoga and the Ayurvedic system of healing, has been known to be successful, the most of western scientists have refused to pay any heed to it, only because it is perceived a threat to the influential and powerful drug industry.

Same would be the case with evidence in support of telepathy, meaningless questions would be raised which would dissuade even an ardent believer to pursue the efforts needed. I have indeed gone through the procedures and methods employed but several scientists trying to disprove telepathy, you may find some links even on wikipedia.

The fact remains that to prove or disprove any hypothesis or theory is totally at the mercy of the all powerful 'the so called scientific aristocracy!

[ronthepon]

In my opinion, one of the reasons that even the most scientific persons take to supernaturalism being true is periods of physically induced mental weaknesses.
I do not mean pain etc, I am reffering to times when their rationalism is overridden by very strong emotions.

Such happenings can occur due to special environmental factors, like darkness , fog, high wind, moonlit night. Also some musics (enigma style) with long and continuous constant tones hovering in the background of the song have potentials to do so.