Oh FFS!

9 Replies, 1490 Views

Brains or baloney? 

Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
[-] The following 1 user Likes Stan Woolley's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel
There is a reason I have a downer about ‘Sabine’ and her video (that’s why it’s titled the way it is). The word ‘Pseudoscience’ has come to signify a derogatory vibe about the thing that’s being described, people that use that word often appear to have certain prejudices. Sabine is in that category imo. 

To me she just exudes a certain arrogance, it’s as if people like her ‘know it all’, ‘have it all worked out’. If they don’t have it worked out, ‘Science’ will deliver...eventually. Saying that, I’m not trying to take away the many benefits that Science has brought us, but it just seems as if the spotlight is on one chosen thing, while ignoring and dismissing other avenues and possibilities. (Does this remind you of something?)

Having a PhD seems to give some individuals too much confidence in their own ‘religion’ while closing their minds in inverse proportion. Scientist like her really are as blinded by their own form of faith as any cult or religious types. 

Einstein may have been ‘hard to top’ but he was just as fallible as many others in that his not wanting to accept quantum physics was stronger than his own faith in evidence! And I certainly have great respect for the man. QM isn’t logical imo, is mind altering in its potential, but there’s overwhelming evidence that it’s actually how things are!!
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
(This post was last modified: 2021-02-15, 10:20 AM by Stan Woolley.)
[-] The following 4 users Like Stan Woolley's post:
  • Obiwan, Sciborg_S_Patel, Brian, Smaw
I didn't watch the video, but read her blog post version of it. Sabine is a guilty pleasure of mine because she's quite good at ripping into physics related topics. Her taking string theory and many worlds down a peg is satisfying and she certainly goes against overhype stuff. Though she's very much got her own biases and her grasp on philosophy isn't awfully up to scratch.

As someone with no love for the simulation hypothesis though I thought this was pretty good, just highlighting more problems about actually trying to do it.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Smaw's post:
  • entangled_cat
Having watched the video, I don't think she realizes how many presumptions she makes.  For example, faith is based on evidence even if the evidence isn't 100% conclusive until after the faith is tested.  I'm sure those who Jesus healed (according to a number of not entirely unreliable witnesses) didn't think of faith as something blind.  In fact it has similar validity to a replicated experiment, especially with regards the feeding of the 5000 and the resurrection, both of which all four gospel writers attest to.
[-] The following 2 users Like Brian's post:
  • Stan Woolley, Sciborg_S_Patel
(2021-02-15, 10:16 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: There is a reason I have a downer about ‘Sabine’ and her video (that’s why it’s titled the way it is). The word ‘Pseudoscience’ has come to signify a derogatory vibe about the thing that’s being described, people that use that word often appear to have certain prejudices. Sabine is in that category imo. 

To me she just exudes a certain arrogance, it’s as if people like her ‘know it all’, ‘have it all worked out’. If they don’t have it worked out, ‘Science’ will deliver...eventually.

Yeah, she had some interesting things to say about how theoretical physicists has been spinning its wheels...then she somehow decide[d] she's some kind of authority on topics in which her fellow physicists - including Nobel winners like Josephson and Penrose - would disagree.

Given she's a supporter of Superdeterminism - an idea most physicists, including other Physicalists, think is bonkers - she should be a bit more humble and open some dialogue with those who disagree. Tom Campbell has discussed ways to test the Simulation Hypothesis, and the Peer to Peer version by Marcus Arvan was good enough that the chemist who [first] produced a simulated [chemical] reaction on blockchain actually went to message him that his finding supports the P2P Hypothesis.

(2021-02-15, 02:30 PM)Brian Wrote: Having watched the video, I don't think she realizes how many presumptions she makes.

Specifically with regards to the Simulation Hypothesis, she acts as if we could know what Nature is like outside the Simulation. That's like if someone was stuck in World of Warcraft [yet could end up] being able to understand our physics.

But yeah, she should at least try to talk to Christian physicists like Christopher Isham and/or Simulation-Idealist ones like Bernard Haisch [who are lending support to the ideas of Bishop Berkeley]. Maybe also the physicists I mentioned above who have Nobel Prizes.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'

- Bertrand Russell


(This post was last modified: 2021-02-15, 06:42 PM by Sciborg_S_Patel.)
[-] The following 2 users Like Sciborg_S_Patel's post:
  • Brian, Stan Woolley
(2021-02-15, 06:25 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: That's like if someone was stuck in World of Warcraft [yet could end up] being able to understand our physics.


Are you a player?
[-] The following 1 user Likes Silence's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel
(2021-02-15, 07:46 PM)Silence Wrote: Are you a player?

No, decade or so ago balked at the idea of a monthly fee...funny given all the streaming channels I pay for now...
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'

- Bertrand Russell


[-] The following 1 user Likes Sciborg_S_Patel's post:
  • Silence
(2021-02-15, 07:53 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: No, decade or so ago balked at the idea of a monthly fee...funny given all the streaming channels I pay for now...

That's funny.  A decade ago or so, I was five boxing WOW.  Was a blast but dang, it was a time sink!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Silence's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel
(2021-02-15, 02:30 PM)Brian Wrote: Having watched the video, I don't think she realizes how many presumptions she makes.  For example, faith is based on evidence even if the evidence isn't 100% conclusive until after the faith is tested.  I'm sure those who Jesus healed (according to a number of not entirely unreliable witnesses) didn't think of faith as something blind.  In fact it has similar validity to a replicated experiment, especially with regards the feeding of the 5000 and the resurrection, both of which all four gospel writers attest to.


I suspect she's quite aware.

Her apparently claim that science has explanations for everything is false. Unsolved problems exist. Those things have evidence that can be independently verified. Multiple ppl across multiple independent organizations can see the crater at Yukatan or observe and record the fossil record

The main issue with Jesus healing people is, we can' prove it happened. We don't even have 
proof Jesus existed. If he existed, we don't know how much of scripture is made up after the
fact.   We don't even have the original accounts.

Science has a hard time deciding how an event which may or may not have happened,
occurred. Theories can't be tested. Certainly, we know how other faith healers worked. We can test
them.
(2021-10-23, 02:50 PM)entangled_cat Wrote: I suspect she's quite aware.

Her apparently claim that science has explanations for everything is false. Unsolved problems exist. Those things have evidence that can be independently verified. Multiple ppl across multiple independent organizations can see the crater at Yukatan or observe and record the fossil record

The main issue with Jesus healing people is, we can' prove it happened. We don't even have 
proof Jesus existed. If he existed, we don't know how much of scripture is made up after the
fact.   We don't even have the original accounts.

Science has a hard time deciding how an event which may or may not have happened,
occurred. Theories can't be tested. Certainly, we know how other faith healers worked. We can test
them.
My post was about this person's views on presumption and faith, not about whether or not the Bible record can be scientifically verified.  It seems there is plenty of evidence out there to help us make a philosophical choice. I don't need science to prove any of it any more than I need science to prove that my wife is trustworthy.  I trust my wife on the basis of the evidence that I have.  If I had to always rely on science and never on faith, I couldn't live any kind of human life.
[-] The following 3 users Like Brian's post:
  • Valmar, woethekitty, Typoz

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)