Narrow Minded MSM Scientist

[Ninshub]

Sceptical as I am about post mortem survival and associated things, I do think that some scientists tend to rush in with very naive and simplistic opinions about these questions. I think they should have a bit more humility and acknowledge that people much cleverer than they are have considered the subject carefully without coming to the conclusion that one side of the argument is "bonkers." And really I think they should recognise that philosophy is an academic discipline with a long history and a large established body of knowledge, and that the possession of a Ph.D. in physics or anatomy doesn't qualify them to pronounce on questions outside their area of expertise.

Maybe it's partially a result of a person having strictly studied science in university and not having studied other disciplines that recognize and help you cultivate more meta attitudes towards thinking, "facts", knowledge, beliefs, opinions, etc.

I do like how he doesn't mince words and just says what he thinks.


And of course she responds with the woo word.

Yes, I was disappointed to see her resort to that, Ian. To just invoke the term "woo" to sum up a whole field of anomalous, well researched data, reflects badly on her. On the other hand, she's sort of doing her duty, 'dog whistling' to materialists and one can see, they never fail to come running to her assistance.

I'd say the invocation of the "woo" mantra reflects badly. It essentially means someone hasn't researched the topic sufficiently to be able to respond with any scientifically based response. I'm all for science. This isn't about "science versus woo" but about knowledge versus ignorance, and here unfortunately the use of the term "woo" invariable amounts to an admission of having a lack of knowledge. I've said this before, the ability to simply say "I don't know" seems so difficult for some, bluffing is preferred.

To be fair though, when one's career, reputation and means of earning a living is at stake, it isn't surprising that so many toe the party line.

the ability to simply say "I don't know" seems so difficult for some, bluffing is preferred.

And in no circle is this character flaw more apparent than with scientists.

Shockingly intellectual dishonest behavior.  Amazes me they do not call each other out when this happens.

And in no circle is this character flaw more apparent than with scientists.

Shockingly intellectual dishonest behavior.  Amazes me they do not call each other out when this happens.

Much more like they would get called out for breaking ranks. Though it was some years ago now, a notable example is Dr Rupert Sheldrake. A respected Cambridge-educated scientist who dared to do his own research and talk about the results was vilified for doing so. Or Professor Brian Josephson, Nobel-prize winning physicist, found himself a persona non grata, disinvited from a speaking engagement for having a mind of his own.

No, when one is on the inside, the accepted strategy is to keep one's head down, and not to even dare to read a book or academic paper, let alone conduct actual research, lest one be cast into the flames. After all, this strategy worked well for state-sponsored religion, the establishment may change its name, but not its methods, nor unfortunately remove its blinkers (blinders).

[/rant over]

Much more like they would get called out for breaking ranks. Though it was some years ago now, a notable example is Dr Rupert Sheldrake. A respected Cambridge-educated scientist who dared to do his own research and talk about the results was vilified for doing so. Or Professor Brian Josephson, Nobel-prize winning physicist, found himself a persona non grata, disinvited from a speaking engagement for having a mind of his own.

No, when one is on the inside, the accepted strategy is to keep one's head down, and not to even dare to read a book or academic paper, let alone conduct actual research, lest one be cast into the flames. After all, this strategy worked well for state-sponsored religion, the establishment may change its name, but not its methods, nor unfortunately remove its blinkers (blinders).

[/rant over]

Cast into the flames for daring to read a book?


Can I have some of what you're imbibing, please?

Cast into the flames for daring to read a book?


Can I have some of what you're imbibing, please?

Poetic licence - it arises just after awakening, before the daily grind sets in.

Poetic licence - it arises just after awakening, before the daily grind sets in.

Seriously though, if there were really a conspiracy in the scientific establishment to ban any interest in psi, the Parapsychological Association would hardly have survived as an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for 50 years. I think that's actually a good illustration of the situation, because - if I understand correctly - the attempt that was made to expel the PA was largely the result of a campaign by an individual anti-psi zealot, John Archibald Wheeler.

Obviously there are still such anti-psi zealots, who not only disbelieve in psi but would like to stop psi research altogether. But their attitudes obviously aren't representative of scientists as a whole. Many are probably sceptical, but without much interest in or knowledge of the field. I'm sure most never give the subject a thought.

Woo, and bonkers are not arguments. But science does not overturn the way it understands the world until a better way of understanding the world comes along. It’s up to somebody to find a better explanation which encompasses all our current observations, as well as the observations which don’t fit. That is most likely to be some sort of new generalisation I think. But even though there are plenty of observations already which don’t fit the theories we have, you can’t just overturn the old theories until you have something better to replace them with.

I don’t think anybody is suggesting that old theories should be overturned without a better replacement, but that replacement might come from an unexpected direction. That scientists totally dismiss certain areas out of hand doesn’t bode well.