Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sean Carroll Daily Star
#1
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-...an-Carroll

"Physicist Sean Carroll has studied the issue for years and the theory that the soul remains after the body dies.

He is firmly convinced that life after death is impossible – as our consciousness cannot separate from our bodies."


He's studied the issue for years, what a joke. Last I heard, he hasn't even looked at the NDE/ADE/OBE data, which according to him, has to be wrong.
[-] The following 5 users Like The King in the North's post:
  • Slorri, E. Flowers, tim, Obiwan, laborde
Reply
#2
You missed out the best bit - the headline:

Life after death BOMBSHELL: Scientist offers verdict that could end debate
[-] The following 4 users Like Chris's post:
  • Smithy, Typoz, The King in the North, laborde
Reply
#3
You have to love the pals at the Daily Star seasoning the rest of the article with 'shocking stories' and ghost videos!

On topic, I thought this quote:

“There’s no way within those laws to allow of the information stored in our brains to persist after we die.” (my italics)

is just about the tautological limit of Carroll's argument. Plus ... he could drop an r or l in his name to avoid redundancy.
[-] The following 1 user Likes laborde's post:
  • The King in the North
Reply
#4
Perfect example of a scientist not practicing science.  Hopefully, the true scientists that fls and others tell me are out there will come to the rescue of actual science and point out the flaws in his argument (if its fair to call it such).
[-] The following 1 user Likes Silence's post:
  • The King in the North
Reply
#5
(11-10-2017, 09:00 AM)Chris Wrote: You missed out the best bit - the headline:

Life after death BOMBSHELL: Scientist offers verdict that could end debate

I was curious about where these quotations from Carroll actually came from, and it turns out that bizarrely this "news" item is reporting on a blog article he wrote for Scientific American nearly six and a half years ago, in May 2011:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue...-the-soul/

It was discussed a couple of years after that on the old Skeptiko forums:
http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skept...an-carroll
Reply
#6
(11-10-2017, 01:51 PM)Silence Wrote: Perfect example of a scientist not practicing science.  Hopefully, the true scientists that fls and others tell me are out there will come to the rescue of actual science and point out the flaws in his argument (if its fair to call it such).

As you say, this wasn't an example of the practice of science, so I'd generally expect it to be unnoticed, rather than expect a correction.

Linda
Reply
#7
(11-10-2017, 06:08 PM)fls Wrote: As you say, this wasn't an example of the practice of science, so I'd generally expect it to be unnoticed, rather than expect a correction.

Linda

And yet he and others continue to spew baseless nonsense like it and get kudos as if their being scientists verifies or makes unassailable their broad, unfounded and uneducated assertions. Carroll is as guilty of this as anyone I've encountered.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dante's post:
  • The King in the North
Reply
#8
(11-10-2017, 08:09 PM)Dante Wrote: And yet he and others continue to spew baseless nonsense like it and get kudos as if their being scientists verifies or makes unassailable their broad, unfounded and uneducated assertions. Carroll is as guilty of this as anyone I've encountered.

Which is why I wish people would attempt to get their information from reliable sources.

Linda
Reply
#9
(11-10-2017, 06:08 PM)fls Wrote: As you say, this wasn't an example of the practice of science, so I'd generally expect it to be unnoticed, rather than expect a correction.

Linda

I think this is a cop out on a technicality Linda if, indeed, any formal member of the scientific community thinks this way.

I would argue they have a moral obligation to challenge something of this nature ESPECIALLY if they want the masses to trust in science.

For its this type of stuff from guys like Carroll that have made me cautious of science when I was not previously.  I'd add in Lawrence Krauss who I find almost loathsome in his egocentric posture and insulting tone to millions of people who have faith different from his.  Dawkins, etc.  Even innocuous old Bill Nye and media darling Neil deGrasse Tyson.  While the latter two aren't militant, if you listen closely they overstep their bounds with great frequency.

IMHO, folks in positions of scientific authority should carefully caveat any metaphysical claim they wish to make with "This is just my opinion as a layman like you...".  Its really the only honorable, ethical way to proceed.

And yes I understand they feel compelled to fight the religious fundamentalists that do not want pure science to be taught in schools.  I am fully with them in that fight.  But it seems they have cast the net too far and are losing people, like me, who aren't fundamentalists.... including scientific materialism.
[-] The following 3 users Like Silence's post:
  • The King in the North, Kamarling, Doug
Reply
#10
(11-10-2017, 10:21 PM)Silence Wrote: I think this is a cop out on a technicality Linda if, indeed, any formal member of the scientific community thinks this way.

I would argue they have a moral obligation to challenge something of this nature ESPECIALLY if they want the masses to trust in science.

I take your point, but most scientists are too busy doing science to pay attention to this stuff.

Quote:For its this type of stuff from guys like Carroll that have made me cautious of science when I was not previously.  I'd add in Lawrence Krauss who I find almost loathsome in his egocentric posture and insulting tone to millions of people who have faith different from his.  Dawkins, etc.  Even innocuous old Bill Nye and media darling Neil deGrasse Tyson.  While the latter two aren't militant, if you listen closely they overstep their bounds with great frequency.

IMHO, folks in positions of scientific authority should carefully caveat any metaphysical claim they wish to make with "This is just my opinion as a layman like you...".  Its really the only honorable, ethical way to proceed.

And yes I understand they feel compelled to fight the religious fundamentalists that do not want pure science to be taught in schools.  I am fully with them in that fight.  But it seems they have cast the net too far and are losing people, like me, who aren't fundamentalists.... including scientific materialism.

I don't disagree. But I can't control others' behaviour, only my own. And unfortunately, those scientists who speak on what they know, and specify what is speculation and opinion (which I suspect is a large majority), aren't the ones who get the attention.

I think we'd do much better if individuals were inoculated against unwarranted speculation and ill-informed opinions in the first place through a much better program of teaching how to access information starting in primary school (e.g. https://www.stopfake.org/en/swedish-kids...ry-school/).

Linda
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)