Science as Religion

[Satyr]

Is science infected by prejudices?

We all know of the scientific method and peer reviews but this does not make social and cultural infections impossible when the peers are mostly populated by members of the same mimetic group.
Does the modern reliance of science upon funding corrupt its mission?
Who funds these scientific explorations and how is a scientist to avoid being guided by their requirements?
Is the threat upon career and reputation and family to be considered insignificant?

Is modern science free from religious or popular mythologies?
Take the search for the "god particle" or the exploration of The Big Bang as a beginning to existence, is this valid exploration or is it based on a social and/or cultural predisposition?
Upon what grounds does a "free-thinking" mind seek the beginning or the end to existence? What evidence leads him to the supposition that such a thing, an event, a point in space/time, is actual, real, existent?

Is all exploration of human nature, particularly those concerning racial and sexual matters, free from social and cultural pressures?
Who would dare ask the right questions?

Does how one asks a question and the form this asking takes or that one asks at all, guide the outcome?
If so what criteria should guide what questions we ask and how we ask them?

[ForgedinHell]

Is science infected by prejudices?

We all know of the scientific method and peer reviews but this does not make social and cultural infections impossible when the peers are mostly populated by members of the same mimetic group.
Does the modern reliance of science upon funding corrupt its mission?
Who funds these scientific explorations and how is a scientist to avoid being guided by their requirements?
Is the threat upon career and reputation and family to be considered insignificant?

Is modern science free from religious or popular mythologies?
Take the search for the "god particle" or the exploration of The Big Bang as a beginning to existence, is this valid exploration or is it based on a social and/or cultural predisposition?
Upon what grounds does a 'free-thinking" mind seek the beginning or the end to existence? What evidence leads him to the supposition that such a thing, an event, a point, is actual, real, existent?

Is all exploration of human nature, particularly those concerning racial and sexual matters, free from social and cultural pressures?
Who would dare ask the right questions?

Does how one asks as question and the form this asking takes or that one asks at all, guide the outcome?
If so what criteria should guide what questions we ask and how we ask them?

LOL. You serious?

[Satyr]

Nope!

[Notvacka]

Is science infected by prejudices?

We all know of the scientific method and peer reviews but this does not make social and cultural infections impossible when the peers are mostly populated by members of the same mimetic group.
Does the modern reliance of science upon funding corrupt its mission?
Who funds these scientific explorations and how is a scientist to avoid being guided by their requirements?
Is the threat upon career and reputation and family to be considered insignificant?

Is modern science free from religious or popular mythologies?
Take the search for the "god particle" or the exploration of The Big Bang as a beginning to existence, is this valid exploration or is it based on a social and/or cultural predisposition?
Upon what grounds does a 'free-thinking" mind seek the beginning or the end to existence? What evidence leads him to the supposition that such a thing, an event, a point, is actual, real, existent?

Is all exploration of human nature, particularly those concerning racial and sexual matters, free from social and cultural pressures?
Who would dare ask the right questions?

Does how one asks as question and the form this asking takes or that one asks at all, guide the outcome?
If so what criteria should guide what questions we ask and how we ask them?

LOL. You serious?

No, Satyr is obviously a satire, a parody, and thus not all that serious. Yet, unlike you, he usually makes sense. It's possible to understand what he means, to identify his standpoint and try it out. Those last two questions, for instance, are both valid and interesting: Does how one asks a question and the form this asking takes or that one asks at all, guide the outcome? I would say yes, of course it does. So what criteria should guide what questions we ask and how we ask them?

[ForgedinHell]

Is science infected by prejudices?

We all know of the scientific method and peer reviews but this does not make social and cultural infections impossible when the peers are mostly populated by members of the same mimetic group.
Does the modern reliance of science upon funding corrupt its mission?
Who funds these scientific explorations and how is a scientist to avoid being guided by their requirements?
Is the threat upon career and reputation and family to be considered insignificant?

Is modern science free from religious or popular mythologies?
Take the search for the "god particle" or the exploration of The Big Bang as a beginning to existence, is this valid exploration or is it based on a social and/or cultural predisposition?
Upon what grounds does a 'free-thinking" mind seek the beginning or the end to existence? What evidence leads him to the supposition that such a thing, an event, a point, is actual, real, existent?

Is all exploration of human nature, particularly those concerning racial and sexual matters, free from social and cultural pressures?
Who would dare ask the right questions?

Does how one asks as question and the form this asking takes or that one asks at all, guide the outcome?
If so what criteria should guide what questions we ask and how we ask them?

LOL. You serious?

No, Satyr is obviously a satire, a parody, and thus not all that serious. Yet, unlike you, he usually makes sense. It's possible to understand what he means, to identify his standpoint and try it out. Those last two questions, for instance, are both valid and interesting: Does how one asks a question and the form this asking takes or that one asks at all, guide the outcome? I would say yes, of course it does. So what criteria should guide what questions we ask and how we ask them?

Actually, nothing you nor satyr ever writes makes sense. Don't flatter yourself. Science already addresses the questions he asked. They are the type of questions someone who is scientifically illiterate would ask. Maybe you should actually study some real science first, then come back and read over those two sentences from satyr, then you'll be laughing at them too.

[Satyr]

Morons, retards, imbeciles, douche-bags, effete fags and cowards need not concern themselves with this.
Please...move on and ignore.
This is meant for human beings, not niggers or manimals or sheeple or herd types in general.
You too FagFromCo.
You are just begging to get butt-fucked now. It's pathetic.
Thanks for letting us know what your priests have done...too bad you can't prove it.


The Blank Slate - Pinker, Steven

1/12

2/12

3/12

4/12

5/12

6/12

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

12/12

[Jonathan.s]

Greetings all - I am new here.

I think the OP makes an important point. Why? Because science, like any other human activity, is conditioned by historical factors, by human opinions, by notions of what is right and what is not.

Case in point: there was a discussion in New Scientist on 14th January as to whether or not current cosmological theories support the idea of an instant of 'creation':

Physicist Stephen Hawking, responding to suggestions that there may be no avoiding a creation event in cosmological theories, said that "a point of creation would be a place where science broke down" and that "one would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God"

Now, regardless of the specifics of the debate, the very fact that certain ideas are likely to be dismissed or disregarded because they sound 'religious' or seem to support the requirement for 'a higher intelligence' is indicative of a certain mind-set. Similarly, in discussions of 'the multiverse', one factor that is often mentioned is that the possibility of the multiverse decreases the cogency of the argument of the so-called 'fine-tuned universe'. Why? Because if there are countless universes, 'this one' just happens to be 'one that is just right for life'. Never mind that multiverse theories are, by definition, impossible to falsify by natural science, and therefore arguably not scientific at all.

There are many such examples in current science, especially at the edges and extremes. But a similar point was made a long time ago by Philosophy of Science, which pointed out that scientists will be inclined to entertain particular kinds of hypotheses, in line with the current paradigm, or worldview, within which they operate. And 'a worldview' is certainly not a question for science, as such, as much as history, and circumstance.

[ForgedinHell]

Morons, retards, imbeciles, douche-bags, effete fags and cowards need not concern themselves with this.
Please...move on and ignore.
This is meant for human beings, not niggers or manimals or sheeple or herd types in general.
You too FagFromCo.
You are just begging to get butt-fucked now. It's pathetic.
Thanks for letting us know what your priests have done...too bad you can't prove it.


The Blank Slate - Pinker, Steven

1/12

2/12

3/12

4/12

5/12

6/12

7/12

8/12

9/12

10/12

11/12

12/12

I'm pretty sure Steven Pinker in his book How the Mind Works used a kin-selection theory as an explanation for human conduct. I think, although I would have to get up and look at the publication of both books sitting on my book shelves, that the Blank Slate came first. The kin-selection theory has been mathematically proven false. That would mean both books are out-dated.

[Satyr]

And once more you are proven wrong.
But thanks for telling me about your book shelves.

[ForgedinHell]

And once more you are proven wrong.
But thanks for telling me about your book shelves.

You haven't proven me wrong yet. Unlike you, I actually read the books I cite.

[Satyr]

Yes I have.
You read selectively and you understand just so.

[ForgedinHell]

Yes I have.
You read selectively and you understand just so.

If you mean I read quality books, then yes, that's absolutely true. Since one cannot read everything, reading the right books, as Carl Sagan stated, is vitally important.

[Satyr]

Pinker just tore you a new one...mathematically so.

I read coloring books....as my buddy said.
You love hiding behind others, huh fag?

[ForgedinHell]

Pinker just tore you a new one...mathematically so.

I read coloring books....as my buddy said.
You love hiding behind others, huh fag?

Pinker? Don't make me laugh. He believes, or did, in kin selection. It was all over his book How The Mind Works, and he never mentioned group selection as an explanation. Besides which, he's basically just guessing about a lot of things, and failed to present evidence supporting most of his claims. If he says that people relate to their blood relatives closer than they do to their non-blood relatives, and there is a calculation that automatically takes place involving the closeness of the relationship, the age of the relative, and how much in need the relative is, then what I would like to see is an equation giving specific weights to each of these variables showing how these elements affect someone's behavior as claimed. However, one can read throughout his book, and nothing even remotely close to such an equation can be found. And you think someone he used math to tear me a "new one"? Seriously?

[Satyr]

He tore you to pieces.
You are welcome.

Begin by giving a definition of the #1.
Your weights and measurements depends on it.
Then give a definition of species.
Your reputation demands it.