Narrow Minded MSM Scientist

That scientists totally dismiss certain areas out of hand doesn’t bode well.

Effectively what happens here is not only to "dismiss certain areas", but just as important, to deny that there is anything lacking in the current scientific narrative. That latter is perhaps most troubling, it is effectively a declaration of "right, we already know everything, all we need now is to dot the i's and cross the t's".

A similar declaration was famously made in the past. What followed was the development of both relativity and quantum physics.

I suppose we may take hope from that, human folly is nevertheless overcome with time.

Effectively what happens here is not only to "dismiss certain areas", but just as important, to deny that there is anything lacking in the current scientific narrative. That latter is perhaps most troubling, it is effectively a declaration of "right, we already know everything, all we need now is to dot the i's and cross the t's".

A similar declaration was famously made in the past. What followed was the development of both relativity and quantum physics.

I suppose we may take hope from that, human folly is nevertheless overcome with time.

Very good, Typoz !

I did a bit more reading about Alice Roberts, and I really don't think she should be taken as representative of scientists in general, because:
(1) As far as I can see, her subject is anatomy and her research area is bone diseases in early man (that's if she still does research - her current position is Professor of Public Understanding of Science*), so in talking about consciousness she is certainly outside her area of specialist knowledge.
(2) She is a humanist, and a political campaigner for humanist causes. She is currently president of Humanists UK.

I think this, as so often, is a case of someone with strong opinions which aren't directly linked to her scientific work.

(* Edit: Sorry, that should be Professor of the Public Engagement in Science.)

Then she should clarify her position is one of her own bias, of which she has a form of "faith" (effectively), and that she isn't speaking from a scientific position.

Hence my point on the intellectually dishonesty that so often stems from scientists.  They know better than to play, anything, loose and fast.

Maybe "scientists" should be made a protected group under the Equality Act. People seem to be very prone to generalising about them, based on the behaviour of a vocal minority.

And do people not think parapsychologists are scientists too?

Then she should clarify her position is one of her own bias, of which she has a form of "faith" (effectively), and that she isn't speaking from a scientific position.

Hence my point on the intellectually dishonesty that so often stems from scientists.  They know better than to play, anything, loose and fast.

An individual scientist who conveys a scientific position on an specific topic isn't usually speaking from their own personal bias or faith, nor are they usually speaking from their own knowledge and experience on that specific topic. Our scientific information is far too broad, and the amount of information which goes into each position so overwhelming, that it is beyond the capacity of an individual scientist to evaluate (except for the narrow band of information in which they have expertise). So when someone like Alice Roberts conveys a scientific position on consciousness (putting aside the issue of whether "bonkers" qualifies as a scientific position  ), they aren't saying "this is my position on the subject." What they are saying is, "this is the position of those with the most experience exploring the subject and who are most familiar with all the relevant information."

You don't have to get all scientists to read up on a subject in order for them to believe it. After all, you will find most doctors, biologists, and psychologists accept the existence of black holes, even though essentially none of them are likely to have read any of the relevant research papers on the subject. You just have to get those scientists who are nearest to the subject to read the relevant research and evaluate it, and it (valid/not valid) will spread from there. Alice Roberts doesn't believe in consciousness outside the brain because it isn't the scientific position among neuroscientists, not because she's familiar with the research. And even if she was and you managed to change Alice Roberts' mind, changing the mind of a biological anthropologist (who has nothing to do with NDEs) isn't going to change the mind of a neuroscientist who studies the experiences had by people while they are deeply comatose or near death.

A scientist telling you what scientific position is held by the scientists in that field isn't "playing fast and loose", so there isn't any reason to call her out on that. You might call her out for using derogatory language (depending upon what the research shows with respect to effectiveness).

Linda

Halleluljah !   some slight movement ! (Edited for clarity)

Maybe "scientists" should be made a protected group under the Equality Act. People seem to be very prone to generalising about them, based on the behaviour of a vocal minority.

I see this as a false argument Chris.  Scientists enjoy a position of authority as a group.  Justifiably so in my view as its simply impossible for the layman to understand the nuances.  With that authority comes responsibility.  This is no different in my view than the standards we can (and often do) hold other groups of authority (governmental officials, religious leaders, etc.).

Thus, they should be quite measured in making such statements as the "scientist" in question.  I would argue they should go out of their way to caveat such statements they make from a personal, biased perspective from those they make from their particular scientific discipline authoritative perspective.  After all, we all see how easily their words can sway broad groups of laymen.

And do people not think parapsychologists are scientists too?

Same rules should apply.  I do not see nor try to make a distinction.  That said, it seems the para community often goes to great lengths in separating their metaphysical worldviews from the science they are undertaking.  They have to as the materialist watchdogs are quick to pounce (again, rightly in principle).

An individual scientist who conveys a scientific position on an specific topic isn't usually speaking from their own personal bias or faith, nor are they usually speaking from their own knowledge and experience on that specific topic. Our scientific information is far too broad, and the amount of information which goes into each position so overwhelming, that it is beyond the capacity of an individual scientist to evaluate (except for the narrow band of information in which they have expertise). So when someone like Alice Roberts conveys a scientific position on consciousness (putting aside the issue of whether "bonkers" qualifies as a scientific position  ), they aren't saying "this is my position on the subject." What they are saying is, "this is the position of those with the most experience exploring the subject and who are most familiar with all the relevant information."

1) What makes Alice Roberts an authority on the science underlying of consciousness?
2) What, exactly, is the proven science to which she is appealing is sharing the consensus on this topic?
3) Why didn't she provide such citations as support to her statement of science's consensus on the topic?

I don't think she put nearly the thought into the tweet as you are ascribing.  I think she just popped off about it based on her faith in materialist science.  I'd have respected the tweet if she'd stated as much.

All that said, I really don't know what she was/is thinking.  That fact alone tells me she played it a bit fast and loose.

You don't have to get all scientists to read up on a subject in order for them to believe it. After all, you will find most doctors, biologists, and psychologists accept the existence of black holes, even though essentially none of them are likely to have read any of the relevant research papers on the subject. You just have to get those scientists who are nearest to the subject to read the relevant research and evaluate it, and it (valid/not valid) will spread from there.

Comparing black holes to consciousness is a false comparison.  Albeit a few years ago it wouldn't have been.  Black holes, I believe so keep me straight everyone, are a proven phenomena.  Stating that consciousness exists only in the 'brain' is anything but proven science.  What was your point again?

Alice Roberts doesn't believe in consciousness outside the brain because it isn't the scientific position among neuroscientists, not because she's familiar with the research. And even if she was and you managed to change Alice Roberts' mind, changing the mind of a biological anthropologist (who has nothing to do with NDEs) isn't going to change the mind of a neuroscientist who studies the experiences had by people while they are deeply comatose or near death.

What is a "scientific position" exactly?  I know there isn't any proven science that restricts consciousness to the brain.  But you know that yourself.

So, is "scientific position" here actually an appeal to future science?  Science some years from now that will ultimately prove human consciousness is strictly limited to the brain?

Is "scientific position" therefore actually a position of faith?

1) What makes Alice Roberts an authority on the science underlying of consciousness?
2) What, exactly, is the proven science to which she is appealing is sharing the consensus on this topic?
3) Why didn't she provide such citations as support to her statement of science's consensus on the topic?

I don't think she put nearly the thought into the tweet as you are ascribing.  I think she just popped off about it based on her faith in materialist science.  I'd have respected the tweet if she'd stated as much.

All that said, I really don't know what she was/is thinking.  That fact alone tells me she played it a bit fast and loose.

Quite. There's no evidence that she's given it any more thought, or is any more conversant with the relevant evidence, than the words "bonkers" and "woo" would suggest.

An individual scientist who conveys a scientific position on an specific topic isn't usually speaking from their own personal bias or faith, nor are they usually speaking from their own knowledge and experience on that specific topic. Our scientific information is far too broad, and the amount of information which goes into each position so overwhelming, that it is beyond the capacity of an individual scientist to evaluate (except for the narrow band of information in which they have expertise). So when someone like Alice Roberts conveys a scientific position on consciousness (putting aside the issue of whether "bonkers" qualifies as a scientific position  ), they aren't saying "this is my position on the subject." What they are saying is, "this is the position of those with the most experience exploring the subject and who are most familiar with all the relevant information."

You don't have to get all scientists to read up on a subject in order for them to believe it. After all, you will find most doctors, biologists, and psychologists accept the existence of black holes, even though essentially none of them are likely to have read any of the relevant research papers on the subject. You just have to get those scientists who are nearest to the subject to read the relevant research and evaluate it, and it (valid/not valid) will spread from there. Alice Roberts doesn't believe in consciousness outside the brain because it isn't the scientific position among neuroscientists, not because she's familiar with the research. And even if she was and you managed to change Alice Roberts' mind, changing the mind of a biological anthropologist (who has nothing to do with NDEs) isn't going to change the mind of a neuroscientist who studies the experiences had by people while they are deeply comatose or near death.

A scientist telling you what scientific position is held by the scientists in that field isn't "playing fast and loose", so there isn't any reason to call her out on that. You might call her out for using derogatory language (depending upon what the research shows with respect to effectiveness).

Linda

You explained that so well I'd bet folks are saying to themselves, of course that makes sense.