Learning to Think Critically

Learning to Think CriticallyFrom the author: Despite great strides in our understanding, the average person still does not understand science in the facts or in the practice, and instead fills the void with pseudoscience.

This reflects a worldview that values an emphasis on commonly accepted, traditional lore, and a general disinterest in the role of science and reason in our lives.

Science is perceived by the media, government, and popular conciousness as something that happens to other people.

This is unacceptable. We need to find a way to reach out with reason to the unreasonable, with knowledge to the ignorant, or else we will be unprepared when the moment of crisis finally arrives. There has never been a more important time to value and respect science, technology and reason.

Those who value science can not retreat into their academic towers. We are dependent on popular, political support for this effort, and we will never advance to the next stage without overwhelming public momentum. Outreach is essential, and it can start anywhere, and at any level.

I have a message and a challenge to all viewers. Do something to raise awareness of the role of science in our society, the importance of reason. Take it as a personal responsibility, or no-one will.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 2 hours, 18 minutes)

1k
6.67
12345678910
Ratings: 6.67/10from 89 users.

More great documentaries

1,745 Comments / User Reviews

  1. There are some problems with this video from within the world of science. The work of Rupert Sheldrake (Which is peer-reviewed and has not been successfully debunked) proves the existence of certain forms of esp, as have many other parapsychology organizations over the 1900's. Thing is, these findings are usually by a few percent and are not convincing enough to uproot the purely materialistic worldview of most people who consider themselves to think in a scientific manner. Rejection of something that is suggested or even proven to exist is the essence of unscientific thinking, so do research before you call all of these beliefs unscientific.

    Additionally, the work of Ian Stevenson presents thousands of cases 'suggestive of reincarnation,' and a few other issues you mentioned have some scientific merit. There is a strong argument to be made for ufo sightings, for example, with the explanation that these ufos are constructed by human governments to spy on each other, and are not interstellar craft (This explains why most ufo sightings with some credibility occur on military bases. Aliens probably wouldn't care that much about our weapons technology, but it would be the #1 priority for our governments which possess military technology).

    While it's fair to say that the vast majority of people who acknowledge these phenomena do so for unscientific and irrational reasons, it's dangerous to call them purely pseudo-scientific.

    1. The correct frame of mind to have when dealing with science is to understand that human knowledge is limited, and science is the collection of useful information that can be used to solve human problems and provide explanations and predictions about the state of our universe.

      People who consider themselves to be scientifically-minded often mock or actively harass those who are religious (This includes myself up to around five years ago). The underlying reason for this harassment is a scientifically-minded worldview that has no more grounding in reason or experiment than the book of Genesis, and that worldview is that we have discovered everything important there is to know in the universe, and all we have to do is sort out the details. This is savagely incorrect, and simple logic will prove it, much less going through the process of the scientific method. Simply look at the scientific world-view over different periods of time (200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 10 years ago) and you notice extreme changes. This is because we DON'T know everything, our knowledge is constantly expanding, and with this information it is illogical to make the claim that we know everything about the universe.

      An example:

      We know that gravity exists and its effect can be measured rather precisely, but our knowledge its effect on very large or small scales has changed wildly over the past 100 years, and we still don't have a convincing explanation of WHY gravity is there in the first place. Various fields of theoretical physics have differing explanations, none of which have ever been proven experimentally (In fact the leading field of theoretical physics, string theory, has never provided an experimental result. This means that at the current time, string theory is unscientific. Belief in string theory is not much different than belief in ghost possession). Relativity and quantum mechanics have two different, incongruous theories of the origin of gravity. Most people would assume that science has gravity completely accounted for- This is not true.

      You mention the big bang theory as one of the areas in which people are ignorant, yet the big bang theory is on the low-end of scientific knowledge. It is not proven, the evidence for its existence is rather limited, and what it really is is the best explanation we have to fit what we know about the universe. If you think about it deeply, the big bang theory is not much different than a miracle, however it is the miracle best supported by our observations. That does not make it a fact. I think it is very likely that our understanding of this event is incredibly limited and will evolve drastically in the coming years, as have so many other issues in the history of scientific development.

      It's great to promote reason and critical thinking, but if you use these tools you'll realize you can never make a hard negative claim about something (Ghost possession doesn't exist), you can only ever state the absence of evidence (There is no evidence for, nor reason to believe in the existence of ghost possession). In some cases (ESP in particular, to a lesser extent reincarnation) there IS scientific evidence suggesting the existence of these phenomena, they simply are ignored because they disrupt the current paradigm of 'scientifically-minded' people. This is extremely dangerous, and is precisely what people criticize religion for, ignoring facts because they don't agree with preconceived notions.

      For the record, I got all three questions right, am college-educated and am reasonably science-literate.

    2. Also, within the scientific community there are many beliefs which were initially inspired by religious and occult thinking, and which most 'scientifically-minded' people would defend to the death, without the actual evidence to support these claims.

      One of these is the concept of 'laws of nature,' which really evolved from the book of genesis, and not scientific thinking. The more research is done, and the more scientific knowledge evolves, it's becoming clear that many ideas we used to hold as 'laws of nature' actually aren't laws at all, and the entire concept of 'laws of nature' comes into question. Want an example? Every 'law of nature' breaks down when examining the big bang.

      Only saying this to promote critical thinking and reason. Science isn't always correct (Which is why it changes), and those changes take place much slower than they should because of scientific fanaticism, which is no different than religious fanaticism (See: The Structure of Scientific
      Revolutions by Kuhn).

  2. Scientists' (or so called) are discrediting science by selling politcal agendas such as global warming, cooling, manmade climate change or what ever they are calling it now. Pretty sad that "so called scientists get caught corrupting data and other "so called scientists" dismiss it because suddenly real science isn't as important as a political agenda.

    Big difference between basic scientific method and some of the crao sold here by a science "expert".

    1. we call it climate change because that is wha tour scientific understanding of it has developed into...that's what science does...it changes, it matures, it adapts.
      there is fifty plus years worth of hard evidence supporting climate change.
      on the other side are a few BP press releases Exxon statements, and a multi-million dollar international misinformation campaign aimed at riling up people who are naturally mistrustful of science, like yourself.
      .
      I love the way you can say all of that anti science stuff whilst actually disguising yourself as somebody who is pro science...it's delightfully devious, but not exactly original...Creationists have been flogging that dead horse for years.

    2. The climate has been changing ever since the earth came into being and anyone who says any different is more ignorant than a creationist (if that's possible). The question is to how great an extent man has been responsible for this change and to what extent can we control its more deleterious aspects. I don't claim to know the answer.

      "I love the way you can say all of that anti science [sic] stuff whilst actually disguising yourself as somebody who is pro science." This applies not only to climate change, but also to evolution, abiogenesis, age of the earth. However it not delightfully devious. It is patently and perniciously devious.

  3. Just started watching this... Is that Peter Joseph talking?

  4. I couldn't agree with you more. The scale of ignorance in the US--and worse, our institutionalized disdain for education--is staggering. A couple of years ago I asked a class of junior and senior undergraduates whether they could tell me the dates of World War Two. The general consensus was that Hitler had lived some time in the 1970s. (And one student remarked, "Why is it called World War *Two*? It's not like there was ever a "World War *One*, right?") One problem is that so many people choose to believe things for reasons other than reason. They want to believe in esp, because they want it to be real. Or they want to identify as the kind of person who senses ghosts--or whatever it is. They want to associate autism with the mysterious carryings-on of doctors, for emotional reasons that are not influenced by rational argument. I've heard so many versions of the inane remark, "I believe that every person's opinion should be respected, and everyone should decide for themselves what constitutes proof." What can one do but throw up one's hands (and write peevish comments on websites?)

    1. And I couldn't agree with you more. I found one person who thought Hitler was Russian. Others I have found who believe he had Jewish ancestry (mostly, I think, because it makes a good story). Others can't tell the difference between the singular and the plural, e.g., "everyone should decide for themselves." Find me one American of 20-50 who has read Tom Sawyer (I'll even accept Huckleberry Finn)--I have encountered a large number of Europeans who have).
      "Choosing to believe" is simply an escape from the process of thinking something out and, if necessary, researching it and as you have so accurately stated, a belief "for reasons other than reason," the very embodiment of faith, that is to say wilful ignorance--and those who "choose to believe" are the same people who give more weight to the ill-informed over the conversant, thus constituting the stuff of which creationism, fundamentalism, alternative medicine, etc. are made of.
      I too get tired of people saying, "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion." "Or that's just my opinion," as if somehow to justify the idiocy, nonsense, superstition and downright ignorance emanating from their mouths, their pens or their keyboards. It's not the opinion as much as it is the support behind it.
      I'm curious. What do you teach?
      One way or the other, welcome to TDF. Please keep posting.

  5. While I understand the concerns raised by the documentary's narrator, (raising the level of intelligence) I have some concerns regarding some of his own assertions.
    1) He raised the issue that there is only 4 U.S congressman sitting in political office that have a scientific education. Since by his own admission, only 10% of Harvard graduates knew why summer is hotter than winter, than a scientific degree is meaningless regarding politics, as is apparently a Harvard education all together. (save your money!)
    2) A poster in the doc stating that not drinking alcohol is about the worst thing you can do for your health. (followed by, - okay, here's one I can get behind) Apparently, he doesn't mind pandering to something he supports,(lack of critical thinking) yet chastizes the media , and politicians for pandering to the ignorant public. Perhaps they are ignorant because they are all drunks. (alcohol and intelligence do not go hand in hand, which is why it is legal - keep the public stupid, distracted, and uninformed)
    3) The narrator implies that those in control of politics, media, etc are religiously indoctrinated.
    The awful truth is that this documentary is anti-religious in nature, (athiest agenda) and attempts to hide behind the logic of science, as much as the religious hide creationism behind the term intelligent design. For proof of this mentality, just read the blogs below from the other viewers. The bottom line is science will never explain everything, and just because something can't be proven, does not mean it doesn't exist. (god, telepathy, ghosts, etc)
    On a final note: Philosophy is the precursor to creativity, imagination, and morality. Blogging the idea that Einstein did not need philosophy to create relativity, is rediculous. Everyone is who they are because of their choices, and experiences in the complete, and to remove one thread from Einstein's background would unravel the tapestry of his life. (no relativity) Then again, Einstein did believe in god, but was not religious. Those who think in black and white terms ( the extremes) will never comprehend this mindset, Few things in life are extreme, with the vast majority being a colorful grey mixture for consideration, requiring conscious thought (critical thinking) over reaction. (fight or flight - A or Z, nothing in between) In my opinion, the creator of this documentary is critical, just not thinking! Live long and prosper everyone.

    1. 1. I don't think Einstein believed in God, in fact I'm pretty sure he made he clear he did not in a letter to another scientist before his death.

      Of course this is just a nit pick as Einstein is not the topic here, I thought you might like to adjust your facts base if you were wrong.

      2. Add to the list of scientifically unproven things, "love".

      Adding if you'd like to take critical thinking to extremes, look at the skeptics forum of the James Randi Foundation, the guy who's long had a $1million challenge for anyone who can prove a paranormal event.
      While I approve of his underlying agenda of revealing charlatans and frauds who exploit the vulnerable, their demand for facts in the name of "science" becomes itself fraudulent and just plain mean spirited and close minded.

    2. And criticism of their demand for facts in the name of science is intellectually pathetic.

    3. how is it closed minded to demand evidence?

    4. Hi batvette: I am extremely well versed regarding Einstein, and yes he did believe in god, but was not religious. Technically, this made him a deist. (not a theist, not an athiest) Don't take my word for it, truly research it yourself. Since there is quotes from Einstein covering the entire spectrum, only an indepth study of his life removes the confusion.(avoid blogger opinions regarding this issue) Einstein was also a pacifist,(refused to be labelled otherwise) yet offended absolute pacifists with his acceptance of force to bring down the Nazi's. (the nuances of a complex man)
      As far as the rest of your comments, I completely agree with you. There is much closed mindedness surrounding all of us. It is mean spirited, and yes fraudulent(ulterior motives) under the guise of science, and the root causes are always ignorance, and intolerance. Just look at your attempt to enlighten someone regarding the history of philosophy and science. ( exercise in futility)
      Now, you and I may know that philosophy brought about the underpinnings of scientific methodology, but others seem to have contempt for that which preceeded what we accept today. (arm chair critics living off the backs of those who came before them) You also see this regarding science, and religion. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, were all devoutly religious, and did not have this internal conflict between science, and faith. (opposite sides of the same coin, trying to explain existance - proof/faith) The battle was external, and had to do with power, and control, much as it does today.(the point of this documentary - science good, religion bad) Ultimately, the drive for absolute certainty regarding everything leads to close mindedness, because few things are certain. The limitless potential of possibilities is traded for the comfort (security) of limited certainty. (very limited at that) Perhaps this explains why these people are incapable of love or compassion, because there is no proof it exists, so they deny the possibility from entering their lives. Best wishes batvette, and live long and prosper.

    5. As has been clearly demonstrated time and time again, you are not well-versed regarding Einstein and your statements that he believed in god have been totally debunked by a number of posters far more informed than you.

      And no, philosophy did not bring about the underpinnings of scientific methodology; that was simply the down-to-earth practice of science. Philosophy was merely the codifier or rather the tin can on the tail of the dog.

      Copernicus (note spelling), Galileo and Newton lived in a completely different time when religion dominated. Now thankfully it doesn't, but one way or the other, are they remembered, admired and respected for their theology or their science? Remember, Newton believed in all sorts of nonsense such as the philosopher's stone and alchemy. Comparing them to the present and all that's been discovered their time is unfair to them and completely dishonest.

      I'll take the limited certainty of what can be or has been proved using the highest possible standards to "the limitless potential of possibilities" embraced in the groundless and the unsubstantiated. And by the way, there is scientific proof of the existence of what are known as love and compassion, only you haven't read up on it--and you are responsible for your own ignorance.

      In short, you're as phony as ever and as phony as they come.

    6. @littlebob: It must scare you when someone advises others to research things for themselves in depth, instead of taking you, and your friends nonsense as gospel! I give you this. You are an authority, but only on what it means to be rude, mobbing, and narrow minded.

    7. And you're an authority on what it means to be ignorant, a real authority.

      P.S. My name is Robert, but you're too benighted to understand this.

    8. No that is not true, Einstein never discounted that God could exist. I have read this many times throughout his work, I have been a big follower of Einstein for many years. Honestly, I did not watch the film yet, but there is no need for you all to be so rude to each other, I find it very ignorant when we cannot have tolerance for each other. We all have a right to critically think for ourselves and sometimes we may perceive the evidence differently, but we should all keep an open mind and know that there is a very good possibility that we still know very little there is to know.

    9. "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human
      weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends
      which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle
      can (for me) change this". — Albert
      Einstein, letter to Eric Gutkind, January 3 1954

      Learn to read, lady, All I wrote was that Einstein was not a theist and this quote written the year before his death proves it and also that gives the lie to your statement that you have been a:"big follower of Esintein for many years." . I have no tolerance for ignorance passing as knowledge.

    10. Don't worry about robertallen1 he hounds me a fair bit! :) I'm learning to like it! ;)

    11. And what makes you think that philosophy is the precursor to creativity, imagination and morality? Are you saying that without philosophy Beethoven could not have composed, Picasso could not have painted, Cervantes could not have written? Complete rubbish. Are you saying that philosophy was needed to establish a system of morals? Nonsense. You've put the cart before the horse and as usual gotten everything wrong.

      And spare us your statements about Einstein's theology debunked by so many on this site so long ago--and by the way, Einstein did not create relativity. While you're at it, spare us your abortive attempts at justification of the existence of god, telepathy and ghosts. If there's no hard evidence, forget it.

      Science might not be able to explain everything, but religion explains nothing. Once again, you've clearly demonstrate that you do not know what you're talking about.

    12. "1) He raised the issue that there is only 4 U.S congressman sitting in political office that have a scientific education. Since by his own admission, only 10% of Harvard graduates knew why summer is hotter than winter, than a scientific degree is meaningless regarding politics, as is apparently a Harvard education all together. (save your money!)"

      Harvard is not mainly or only a science school so not all of those grads were science grads. most could have been law or business.

      "2) A poster in the doc stating that not drinking alcohol is about the worst thing you can do for your health. (followed by, - okay, here's one I can get behind) Apparently, he doesn't mind pandering to something he supports,(lack of critical thinking) yet chastizes the media , and politicians for pandering to the ignorant public. Perhaps they are ignorant because they are all drunks. (alcohol and intelligence do not go hand in hand, which is why it is legal - keep the public s*upid, distracted, and uninformed)"

      as much as i dont enjoy alcohol, there are PLENTY of smart people who drink alcohol. moderation is the key.

      "3) The narrator implies that those in control of politics, media, etc are religiously indoctrinated.
      The awful truth is that this documentary is anti-religious in nature, (athiest agenda)"

      the atheist agenda? im an atheist and am unaware of any agenda. if someone feels this documentary is anti-religious, it can only be because they recognize religion to be illogical and irrational.

      "The bottom line is science will never explain everything, and just because something can't be proven, does not mean it doesn't exist. (god, telepathy, ghosts, etc)"

      fairies, lepechauns, invisible teapots, ya just because something cant be proven doesnt mean it doesnt exist. however you would be an idiot to believe they do without any evidence.
      even if science cant explain everything, its the only thing that can explain ANYTHING.

      all you did was disagree with the documentary as soon as it went against one of your pre-held beliefs. thats fine. its called cognitive dissonance.

    13. @Epicurus:
      1) I do not have a Harvard education, and I knew every answer to every question that was asked on this so called documentary, in it's entirety. This has nothing to do with intellligence, or what types of courses Harvard offers to it's students. It has to do with a passion for understanding life in the comprehensive!
      2) Yes, alcohol is not bad, in moderation. That explains all the drunk driving, domestic violence, and shootings that take place around the world, in unmoderate levels.
      3) If your an atheist, and you don't see an atheist agenda, than perhaps that explains why the religious people don't see a religious agenda either.
      4) Have you ever seen an alien? Do you believe in the entire universe, that life on earth is all there is? So, according to your methodology, anyone who believes in aliens is an i*iot without evidence. How about the mathematics of the law of probability. (scientific, yes/no?)

      As I stated in my original blog, I understood the narrator's concerns, but had several issues with some of his assertions. The fact I even questioned any of it, went against your pre-held beliefs regarding your own athiesm. (A dog smells his own crap first) In your words, it is called cognitive dissonance! Live long, and prosper Epicurus!

    14. Now, which of the narrator's assertions did you have a problem with?

      P.S. Anyone who believes in aliens without hard evidence is an i*iot--and mathematics and the laws of the probability about which you displayed an appalling ignorance have nothing to do with it.

    15. your first point has nothing to do with what i was saying.

      2. what about the many many many more people who drink alcohol without those problems?

      3. there is no religious agenda.

      4. you are an i**** if you insist that intelligent life exists. if you admit that its possible since we know that life could form naturally, then you are not an i****.

      "The fact I even questioned any of it, went against your pre-held beliefs regarding your own athiesm"

      this doesnt make sense.

    16. @Epicurus:
      1) Where did I insist that intellligent life exists??? I asked you the following:
      "Have you ever seen an alien? Do you believe in the entire universe, that life on earth is all there is? So, according to your methodology, anyone who believes in aliens is an i*iot without evidence. How about the mathematics of the law of probability. (scientific, yes/no?) - You know, life on earth, but no where else?
      All you did was twist my words, and avoid the question.
      2) Your original statement: "all you did was disagree with the documentary as soon as it went against one of your pre-held beliefs. (implying what pre-held belief?)
      My response:
      " I understood the narrator's concerns, but had several issues with some of his assertions. The fact I even questioned any of it, went against your pre-held beliefs regarding your own athiesm." ( I didn't troll like you, I gave a clear response)
      Your retort:" this doesn't make sense. "
      If you can't see the comparison, it is do to hipocracy. (lack of critical thinking!)
      The awful truth is, I blog to convey information, and to give opinion. (as do all of us) Without a doubt, the largest troller in disqus is littlebob, who I have not responded to in months because he continuously leaves insulting gibberish on my dashboard, and lost his mind recently because he doesn't like me advising other bloggers to research things for themselves. (good advice at any time, for anyone) He finally succeeded in getting a response from me!
      Since I am capable of having this communication respectfully with everyone, (except apparently you and with certanty, littlebob) is why I don't respond to his comments, or your's for that matter, regarding other people. If you are incapable (as a moderator) of moderating yourself accordingly, please refrain from involving yourself in my discussions in the future!

    17. In case you didn't know it, this is a public forum and you will be responded to in any matter the responder deems fit whether you like it or not. Don't try to tell anyone what to do.
      Now, which of the narrator's assertions did you have a problem with--or do you know?

    18. well i can tell this is going to be hell for me since your reading comprehension skills are limited. I never said you did insist intelligence exists elsewhere in the universe. instead of the word YOU i perhaps should have used the word ONE. i see this is going to be difficult.

      so lets try your question again.

      ""Have you ever seen an alien? Do you believe in the entire universe, that life on earth is all there is? So, according to your methodology, anyone who believes in aliens is an i*iot without evidence. How about the mathematics of the law of probability. (scientific, yes/no?) - You know, life on earth, but no where else?"

      I have never seen an alien.

      I dont think its likely that we are the only life in the universe given what we know about life and the elements in the universe. but i dont know so would never insist it.

      anyone who INSISTS there are aliens is being an id*ot.

      law of probability is a good position to take when thinking about life in the universe, but acknowledging we dont have all the variables available to us, we would be id*ots to insist that we know there is life elsewhere in the universe at this moment.

      2) no it doesnt make sense because i said you disagreed with the documentary as soon as it went against your beliefs.but when you said " The fact I even questioned any of it, went against your pre-held beliefs regarding your own athiesm" that sentence doesnt make sense. the fact you questioned the documentary went against MY pre-held beliefs regarding atheism? first off how would you question the doc based on my pre-held beliefs of atheism, secondly what are my pre-held beliefs about atheism?

      what exactly about my comments do you find so distasteful that you would tell me to stop communicating with you?
      I didnt say anything remotely rude to you. you are just trying to now hide behind the victim card because you know that you have essentially stopped making any valid points.

      tell me where i should moderate my comments please.

    19. I'm glad you mention the laws of probability--not that there are any--for resorting to this fiction is one of the biggest mistakes creationists make--and, of course, people like Awful_Truth buy it. Not only do they think they are playing with a full deck when they're actually not, but they also fail to take into account what they're dealing with and thus come up with "figures" which are meaningless and idiotic--why is why people such as Dembski are held in such low esteem by mainstream mathematicians.
      Although you are a moderator, please do not moderate your comments. While Awful_Truth complains so bitterly about this website and its "policies," he still posts here.

    20. Its amazing that he would have a problem with my comments. I felt i was being pretty nice and tame.

    21. I'm never nice and tame, but I thought you were.
      Could you please do me a favor? As you are a biology major, would you please take a look at "Refuting Kenneth R. Miller on Chromosome 2" on You Tube (there's also a sequel, believe it or not) and provide me with your thoughts. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

    22. @Epicurus: Out of respect for you, I will make one last attempt to bridge our impasse. First, what exact comments do I find distasteful?
      1)"well i can tell this is going to be hell for me since your reading comprehension skills are limited". (you don't think that is remotely rude?)
      2) "all you did was disagree with the documentary as soon as it went against one of your pre-held beliefs. thats fine. its called cognitive dissonance." ( you implied first to support your condescending remark. I responded that your position is also based from a pre-held conception, except I named it - athiesm)
      3) The key word was not " one ', or ' you ', but the word, ' intelligent ', which you added to my original statement. I didn't question the doc based upon your pre-held belief. I questioned your response to my blog based upon your preconception of my pre-held belief, which you didn't identify.
      4) " I am an athiest, and I am unaware of any atheist agenda. " and , "There is no religious agenda". (for the record Epicurus, there is always an agenda. eg. Forwarding one's ideology, looking for support, the search for the truth, the sharing of information, and defending one's position are all agendas. It just so happens that some are direct, some hidden, some malicious, etc, etc. In my opinion, to deny this, is beneath you, and your level of intelligence)
      Now, your last blog to me, (previous items aside) you have now finally answered what I queried you, which allows us to move forward.
      So, we agree that there is a strong likelyhood that life exists elsewhere, we just can't prove it with certainty. We both agree that the law of probability is a good place to start. We can also probably agree that all the variables are not likely taken into consideration, because we may not know what they all are. What we can work with, (accepted theorems) are:

      1) The law of large numbers (Jacob Bernoulli's Theorem)
      2) The law of averages
      3) The Drake equation

      For these reasons, most reputable scientists now agree that life in the universe is likely quite abundant,(even the Catholic church now admits this, who says that miracles can't happen) however, confirmation is restrained by 2 factors. The first is the vast distances between star systems prevents any intelligent species from being aware of one another. The 2nd is the life expectancy of any inteliigent species is unknown. The only one we are aware of, (assuming we think humanity is intelligent) is ourselves, and we have only been here for a mere moment regarding the life of the universe. (13.7 billion years) Thus, to believe in aliens is not id*tic, it is a choice based upon our limited knowledge of the day. In fact, to think they don't exist, would be no different then supporting the idea of the virgin birth. (highly improbable, but it would only have to happen once) Even though exceptions to the rule do happen, I tend to be skeptical against that which is most improbable.
      Now, regarding the doc, (learning to think critical) I stated that I understood his premise behind it, (I get it) however, some of the assertions are not based upon crtical thinking, only just being critical. eg. religious politicians, versus scientific politicians. If someone has concerns regarding people in politics, that is fine. I like the idea of separation of church, and state. However, the solution does not rest in scientifc politicians. People of good character (and intelligence) come in many flavors. (most don't end up as politicians. - my opinion)
      Since my value of intelligence is not based soley upon scientific knowledge, I am not limited from the idea of possibilities, or what they may have to offer. eg: philosophy, creativity, etc. It also allows me to see a more comprehensive picture beyond the binary black, and white. A or Z, nothing in between thinking.
      It is precisely for this reason that when someone states Albert Einstein is an athiest, I know with certainty they have not spent the time to truly study the man. Even Vlatko (administrator) and I could agree that he was neither a theist, or an athiest. ( a pantheist, or a deist) Believed in god, just not religion. In fact, Einstein's own pre-conceived notion regarding god being perfect would not allow him to accept quantum mechanics, (god doesn't play dice with the universe) Since perfection is sterile, (only nothing is perfect) he should have understood this. As you so eloquently put it with another blogger, "we live off the backs of the giants who came before us". Only from studying Einstein, could I learn from his mistakes!
      This leads to why I will not try an convince anyone, of something they will never understand, because they refuse to examine that which makes them uncomfortable.
      I am more than happy to exchange ideas with you Epicurus, as long as the delivery is respectable. ( I can agree to disagree) If people wish to make sarcastic comments regarding a doc, that is fine with me, but when it becomes a personal attack, all it does is bring retaliation, (me included) and then no one is listening, in which case, someone has to call an end to it, because it is no longer productive. This is not to " hide behind the victim card ". It just means I have better things to do with my time.
      As a moderator, you should be aware that just because someone isn't cursing, doesn't mean they aren't still being offensive. I have read many comments while refraining from blogging, and have noticed certain people no longer wish to blog here, if they are being mobbed for having different ideas. I respect you, Achems_Razor, and over_the _edge for your intelligence, but when the moderators are calling Mother Theresa a c**t, or protect the biggest troll around, (you know who I am talking about) you lose credibility. (Time to reign in your lapdog)
      Of course, all of this is just my opinion, and you can take it for what it is worth. Best wishes to you Epicurus, and live long and prosper!

    23. "Since my value of intelligence is not based soley upon scientific knowledge, I am not limited from the idea of possibilities, or what they may have to offer. eg: philosophy, creativity, etc. It also allows me to see a more comprehensive picture beyond the binary black, and white. A or Z, nothing in between thinking." From your posts, the value of your intelligence is depressed in proportion to the high opinion you obviously hold of yourself, an opinion not shared by a number of the more knowledgable posters--and rightly so. One way or the other, this statement serves as a succinct explanation for the vacuity and pretension making up most of your posts, not to mention the attempts at deception exmplified by your often debunked comments on Einstein which you keep reiterating ad nauseum and to no avail.

      Possibility means nothing; proof means everything and because you happen to imagine something does not imply that it's worthwhile pursuing--that's where discrimination (probability) comes in . And speaking of possibility/probability, where did Epicurus state that the "laws of probability" is a good start and just which reputable scientists "now agree that life in the universe is likely quite abundant?" Or is this just another one of your many groundless assertions--and yes, believing in aliens without any proof other than your limited understanding of the mathematcis of probability (and there is such widespread disagreement on the values to be given to the parameters of the Drake equation as to render it useless, so don't try to snow us there) is idiotic. Probability does not establish the existence of alien life; hard evidence does.

      It's obvious to any reader of basic intelligence, except apparently you, that Epicurus meant HIDDEN agenda--I guess your failure to pick up on this was behind your pedestrian expostulation on the "search for truth," etc.

      For someone who has a lot of complaints about the site, the posters and the moderators, who cries out for the respect to which he feels entitled and who avers having better things to do with his time, you still keep posting. If you are discomfited by the responses you receive or the menner in which you are treated, you are I'm sure cognizant of your option.

      P.S. Mother Theresa was a c**t.

    24. I don’t like name calling but I just wanted you to know how much I loved your P.S

      Classic understatement!

    25. I don't mind name calling as long as there is something behind it other than the epithet and in Mother Theresa's case, there is plenty.

    26. You are trying to libel the good name of the mods, and by doing so, are slandering the reputation of TDF in general. I personally have not called anyone a c**t or protected any trolls, any and all trolls are consistently banned from TDF, so if you cannot offer any proof of your allegations, I suggest you rescind those type of remarks.

      Whatever I called Mother Teresa is from links on the web relaying info regarding as such.

    27. Awful_Truth has not tried to slander the good name of the mods and the reputation of TDF in general, but rather tried to libel them.

    28. @Achems_Razor: It is pretty hard to provide proof when the moderators cleaned out all their responses to me on the dashboard. Secondly, you sure jump to defend when I didn't even say your name. (a guilty conscience???) With that said, it really doesn't matter considering the group of people I am dealing with.
      The awful truth is your click are only capable of criticizing others without bringing anything original to the discussion. (very safe, unenlightened position) Since you are obviously devoid of anything new,(gave all of you way too much credit) I will no longer respond to anymore comments directed at me by your little sewing circle.

    29. "You clique are[?]" " . . . gave all of you way to[?] much credit." I see that you are as weak in grammar as you are in science and mathematics. It's nice to hear that you will no longer be responding to anymore comments [Ha! Ha! Grammatical error number three]. Now, you can use the time you spend blogging on this site to learning something--anything.

    30. awful_truth
      we both know it was me who deleted your recent posts as i told you it was me and i explained to you why i did. i thought that you understood and agreed with the moderation and deletion since you said you did. if you
      have a problem with me do not drag the other mods or this site into it. by the way even though the posts do not appear any longer we still have them.

    31. One thing you need to remember when thinking about the maths of probabilities, each 'flip of the coin' is unrelated/ independent to any other flip.
      It seems you're forgetting this when using it to talk about alien life. You could calculate it's probable you'll find life on 50, 60 or even 90% of viable planets, it doesn't mean anything other then 'expected chance', till you find evidence.
      Then you have to consider one key variable is not understood, Abiogenesis. Something I'd think is a pretty big thing when looking at whether life has started elsewhere, is how it starts.

      So all you're really calculating is the probability of it being possible life (as we understand it) has started, not that it has. With obviously flawed variables.
      Probabilities + flawed variables = probable incorrect answer.
      Making both your analogy and self assertion incorrect when you said;

      "Thus, to believe in aliens is not id*tic, it is a choice based upon our limited knowledge of the day. In fact, to think they don't exist, would be no different then
      supporting the idea of the virgin birth. (highly improbable, but it would only have to happen once) Even though exceptions to the rule do happen, I tend to be skeptical against that which is most improbable."

      You've not evaluated and concluded based on accurate information, you've come to what you admit is a 'belief' about aliens existing, based on flawed calculations.(belief says it all really)
      Are you sure you're not biased by your attachment to Star Trek?
      You could sign off 100% of the time with 'live long and prosper', you'd still not be Vulcan with green blood.

    32. Precisely. You have to understand what you're dealing with before applying mathematics (in this case probability) to it. What Awful_Truth and others who think they know something don't realize is that probability can be applied only to closed sets, not to everything imaginable, hence the senseless figures. .

    33. @Docoman: If you don't agree with my assertion, that is fine. I don't agree with your assertion that you have the answer to how life began. (oh well) Also, If you are bothered by a sociable meaningful farewell like, live long and prosper, how about live and die in ignorance! (now do you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?) You all really are one angry lot of self deluded know it alls, aren't you? No need to answer. It is a rhetorical question.

    34. Docoman never stated that he knew how life began--so this is just another mischaracterization on your part. And speaking of the self-deluded what about our little "expert" on Einstein and the laws of probability, especially Drake's law. Anyway, thanks for the hours of amusement.

    35. Hey??
      How does me saying it's not understood translate to my asserting I know the answer?

      Sorry mate, but this proves the observation made about you earlier, that you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
      You got something correct though, your 'truth' is pretty awful.

    36. 1) I had not said until the very last post. I had not said anything remotely rude to you and you claimed that I did in order to dodge any questions put to you.

      2) what condescending remark? and my position is not from a pre-held conception. unless you mean the position that requires evidence. if you mean I hold a naturalistic assumption about the universe you would be correct. but atheist? NO.

      3) i didnt identify your preheld belief because it wasnt just one thing. and it wasnt necessary. you know what you took issue with in this documentary and you know why. because it insulted your belief that you already had. dont make this about me.

      4) no atheism has NO AGENDA. and religion doesnt either. the church might have an agenda. an individual atheist might have an agenda. but atheism and religion do not.

      oh and most scientists dont accept the drake equation...WAY too many assumptions. and docoman responded perfectly. i dont need to add anything.

    37. As I understand it, Dr. Drake did not even posit his equation as anything scientific which supports your response and Docoman's, especially in light of the preponderance of disparate figures for the parameters.
      Also by agenda, in the sense Awful_Truth used it implies a hidden agenda. So your statements as to atheism in general and religion in the abstract are correct.
      Have you had the opportunity to look at the short (10 min) documentary on You Tube entitled "Refuting Kenneth R. Miller on Chromosome 2?" Once again, considering your background in biology, I would really appreciate your comments.

    38. What do you mean when you say "How about the mathematics of the law of probability" What mathematics are you referring to? there are some theories of probability, are you referring to the chaos theory, or Feynman "sum over histories" theory? or Shrodinger's equation?

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_equation

    39. @Achems_Razor:
      1) The law of large numbers (Jacob Bernoulli's Theorem)
      2) The law of averages
      3) The Drake equation
      In my opinion, I would start here. Live long, and prosper !

    40. Fine, but still does not answer my question, what math in particular are you referring too? write down the actual math in question and decipher the conclusions to us, the end results how it applies to your post.

      Just giving a number of links does not answer my question, or are you doing "quantum woo" again?

  6. Just a little thing about the second part; if you put a cut onion next to your bed can be of help when you got a cold. The same effect that makes your eyes tear also makes your airways free over night to help you sleep better, thus gaining more resistance to further illness. Maybe this is where the myth came from that an uncut onion cures the flu.

  7. This film seems more about self-esteem, than critical thinking

    It's one thing to search for answers, to vet 'reality' from it's smallest to greatest, but another to sit in a tree and throw apples at someone else's.

    This is philosophically parasitic one-upmanship. I was expecting more, although anyone with a mouth can coin a phrase

    1. With critical thinking comes the right sort of self-esteem. So the two go hand in hand. You've said nothing so far; therefore, please enumerate which parts of the documentary were in error?

    2. I did. You missed it. You also created a strawman assertion

      (Now, was that "critical thinking", or simply 'criticizing someone else's thinking'? You figure it out)

    3. And just where did you enumerate which parts of the documentary were in error and just what is my strawman assertion? If you can't answer, you are simply a liar.

      P.S. Part of critical thinking is criticizing someone else's thinking.

    4. Wait a minute: "Critical thinkers" are critical thinkers

      "Skeptics" are philosophically parasitic armchair jockeys, who whip insults behind the gown of ignorance/emotion/consensus logic, to grant closure and boost their self-esteem

      One starts from scratch, the other scratches what you start. Know the difference

    5. As your post is merely non-responsive gibberish, I can only assume that you are at least partially dyslexic. Therefore, I repeat, just where did you enumerate which parts of the documentary were in error and just what is my strawman assertion? If you can't answer, you are simply a liar.

      P.S. Part of critical thinking is criticizing someone else's thinking.

    6. @Milosc: Good words, impressive thinking. Live long, and prosper Milosc!

    7. i see you get many likes on this one. You got mine too.
      1i

    8. So it's a popularity contest conducted in a miniscule microcosm.
      P.S. You owe me an apology for your patent lie about my acceptance of only those links which I post and until I receive it, I'm going to keep reminding you.

    9. Ha are you not the one always going off about the mainstream being right? Now all of a sudden numbers don't matter? You just jump to whatever side seems like it will win.

    10. There's a world of difference between the consensus of the hoi polloi and that of specialists in their field.
      Once again, you owe me an apology for your patently fraudulent claim that I accept only those links which I post and I'm not going to let you forget it.

    11. I don't owe you anything, but I think you owe me a link to that double blind study you keep talking about. Still waiting on the proof.

    12. I'm a big time sceptic too, I am just a sceptic for vaccines. The burden of proof lies with you not me. provide that double blind study that shows the long term safety and efficacy of vaccines.

    13. You owe myriads of people apologies for being rude and addressing them in a way that goes against the rules of TDF, i will remind you as often as i please when you add to the pile.
      And no apologies coming from me...as i said you accept only those links you post when you dissagree with someone and since you disagree with me on everything, therefore my comment is valid.
      1i

    14. "(i'll let you check as you seem to discredit people's source if it's not yours)," You even lie about what you post.

    15. Yes he does break most TDF commenting rules, he does not make "polite nor friendly comments", If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it. I do not understand why the mods permit Robert's behavior. I love the website, but for some reason he's got some immunity, might have something to do with being the "top commenter". Which is pointless in my opinion if most comments are rude and repetitive.

    16. Look at it as if Robert was the metronome for a grand orchestra of words being written and conserved in computer archives. "Il bat la cadence" by being repetitious and loud and on time all the time. He makes friends by showering those he likes but he mainly makes ennemies on a regular basis by shoveling those he dislike. I have come to enjoy reading him as a i would read a popular actor in a soap opera. His demeanor points to his acting skill as a "terminator" more than to his knowledge where he would shine.
      On an other note.....Learning to Think Critically is a broad sentence, it fits well in several aspects of life

      Some people may have written more than him but have splitted their file numerous times ...(thinking Achems), he is one of the older participant i know of.
      1i

    17. Once again, you owe me an apology and a retraction for your bad-faced lie about my not accepting sources other than my own. This is only one of several reason why I dislike you, another being your claims to knowledge which you don't have as evidenced by the many times you have been shown to be wrong, your debasement of the very concept of education, but foremost, your refusal to get vaccinated and to have your daughters vaccinated as well, thus recklessly endangering others.

    18. I repeat: "no apologies coming from me...as i said you accept only those links you post when you dissagree with someone and since you disagree with me on everything, therefore my comment is valid".
      1i

    19. You've now repeated your lie only in a different form from the original. So I repeat that I will keep reminding you of the apology and retraction that you owe me.

    20. Ah, I heard my name mentioned. You are right, I have probably written the most on TDF, split protocol a few times over the years.

      Without playing favorites, I do not know what you mean by "Roberts behavior" his posts gets deleted as much as anyone else if they do not adhere to the comment policy as our deleted file shows.

      No one should talk about other posters between themselves on TDF these posts are off topic.

  8. You are both absolute idiots. Yes, the Greeks developed the concept of atoms ('cannot be cut', from a-tom). Which is an example of the importance that the critical and analytical processes of philosophy have played in the development of modern scientific method. Without philosophy of science (amongst many other areas of study), we would never have developed ideas such as positivism (early Wittgenstein, Russell, Ayer, the Vienna Circle) and the subsequent falsificationalism (notably Popper).

    The process of critical analysis, reasoning and everything else that has underpinned and propelled science throughout history has come from the unfathomably broad disciplines of philosophy. Does that mean all philosophy is good or useful? No. But neither does the fact that there is bad, useless or even damaging philosophy (particularly the esoteric guff that filled the void during the Dark Ages and the subsequent confusion and drivel of dualist literalism) mean that philosophy hasn't been fundamentally instrumental to the furtherance of scientific progress. More to the point, to think that the job is done and that there'll be no further engagement between the two intellectual schools is either grossly naive, fantastically arrogant or, most likely, both.

    In short, don't call people ignorant when you don't know what you're talking about. Even if, as is the case here, they definitely are.

    1. I ask again, what direct role has philosophy played in medicine, physics, biology and technology other than occupying the peanut gallery, just like movie and music critics. Any scientist (doer) worth his salt doesn't need a philosopher to tell him what to look for or how to look for it. Critical analysis and the scientific method are simply the results of trial and error and the so-called philosophy of science is merely the tin can on the tail of the dog, i.e., after the fact.

      Doers are the only ones who've made any real contributions, not those who merely sit back and think about what the doers have done.

      In short, we don't need philosophy and it is doubtful that we ever did.

    2. They didn't come after the fact though, that's just an unfounded assertion you've made up and is demonstrably untrue. You're clearly hilariously ignorant of the history of philosophy in general, let alone of how it relates to science in particular. Critical analysis - based on various forms of logic - and the scientific method are both products of philosophical thought experiments; what you derisively call 'trial and error'.

      Anyway, I'll not waste my time trying to convince you blue isn't red, since you're obviously determined to do so regardless of the actual evidence.

    3. And no, trial and error implies direct hands-on, not some worthless "philosphical thought experiments," which gives it far more value than any after-the-fact codifying philosophy or philosophers. To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.

      You still haven't answered my question as to what direct role philosophy has played in medicine, physics, biology and technology other than occupying the peanut gallery, Once again, any scientist (doer) worth his salt doesn't need a philosopher to instruct him on the scientific method which he has already learned (or should have learned) through practical application.

      If you think I'm wrong, then prove me wrong--and not with mere assertions.

    4. roberttallen1, what in all heavens are you talking about? -"trial and error implies direct hands-on, not some worthless philosphical thought experiments".

      So how the hell did Einstein develop the theory of relativity? Through "direct hands-on trial and error"!?! It was his ability to abstract new concepts & thoughts- aka philosophy- exploring new concepts.

      You fail to understand that philosophy has preceded scientific discovery at every moment of time. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. You can't physically touch new ideas as you claim happens with discovery- "trial and error implies direct hands-on". Haha

    5. Einstein did not need philosophy to develop the theory of relativity, any more than Niels Bohr and Peter Debye needed it to develop quantum mechanics. The mathematics and physics behind these concepts are clearly hands on.

      How about telling me how philosophy preceded the invention of the wheel, the lighning rod, the incandescent light bulb, the PC, the small pox and polio vaccines or the concept of natural selection (evolution). As a matter of fact, how about telling me how philosophy preceded any major scientific breakthrough.

      You're right "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." This makes it clearly and directly hands-on which means we don't need philosophy.

    6. It's not about "needing" philosophy. Philosophy is abstract thinking which we now use as a tool for scientific discovery.

      Bob the caveman was told that everything that could be invented was already invented. Bob didn't listen and used his abstract thinking skills. He looked at nature and imagined new concepts. Bob the caveman used philosophy as one of his tools to create the wheel. Yes, he used hands on direct experimentation...but he had to create the concepts in his mind first before directing his hands to follow.

    7. If you mean he might have needed to engage in some preparatory thought, perhaps--but that's not philosophy which by your own description is abstract thinking, while Bob's was direct. If I think about the best way to express a thought before uttering or writing it, I don't consider that philosophizing.

      And just what scientific discoveries has philosophy directly engendered?

    8. @skamatics: Well said, good elaboration. Live long, and prosper with philosophy!

  9. This documentary does not explain basic critical thinking skills. It only speaks of a few fallacies and their application to one narrow issue. A good explanation of basic critical thinking skills is much more comprehensive, larger in scope and practical. Your statement is also false as philosophy is the father of the scientific method. Philosophy of mathematics and metaphysics has assisted countless mathematicians make inroads (I have examples) and aesthetics has been the basis of artistic education since antiquity. Philosophy of the mind and psychology are essential to the cognitive and neurological sciences. Philosophical dissertations are not useless, although as most things of importance, they are often boring. These boring dissertations have been the starting point of every major advancement in the modern age including those of these fields: politics, hard sciences, mathematics, theology, economics, literary theory and soft sciences. To assert the importance of these fields and yet deny the relevance of their foundation's methods is a foolish contradiction.

    Ignoring philosophy has been shown to bring disaster, as the destruction of the alexandrian library, the murder of hellenist philosophers and its resulting Dark Ages illustrate. While its benefits are the practical jewels of western culture (the renaissance, the reformation, industrial revolution, modern science, modern democracy, the recognition of human rights, are some small examples of philosophy's gifts). To only focus on one aspect of critical thinking within such a narrow scope is a disservice, as good judgement and wisdom (critical thinking) are necessary for the resolution of so many other issues besides the plague of pseudosciences. This is why I find this documentary so disappointing. It had potential but fell short. It promised something big but offered a smaller thing.

    Although I am not included, science turns off so many viewers, since its methods are relevant to particular types of problems sometimes irrelevant to non-scientists. By equating the scientific method with critical thinking in general, and not defining it as a type of critical thinking, it is easy to dismiss critical thinking as irrelevant to other more meaningful problems. This dismissal is wrong headed, as we have at our finger tips a trove of practical, effective, relevant and comprehensive methods of critical thinking which can actually be used to solve relevant, important non-scientific problems, while not requiring specialized knowledge such as science or mathematics. But as your ill informed statements illustrate, many dismiss these methods too as irrelevant. Well, they are relevant. They are available to anyone with a library card and a lack of apathy.

  10. This documentary is NOT about critical thinking. It is about the conflict between science and humbug. A documentary about critical thinking would talk about topics such as: the scientific method, the logics of Socrates, Aristotle, Frege, Russell, Husserl, and Buddhist philosophy and also, the psychology of judgement, the epistemologies of rationalism and empiricism, philosophy of the mind and judgement theory. Science is not the guardian of critical thinking, it is one expression of it. Philosophy is the source for good and universal methods of critical thinking. And it must be taught to everyone in order to snuff out humbug and the narrow application of the scientific method to problems beyond its scope.

    1. This is simply a documentary about basic critical thinking skills and it does fine for what it is. No philosophy is going to assist a scientist in making a discovery. No philosophy is going to assist a mathematician in making an inroad. No philosophy is going to assist an artist in creating a masterpiece. Philosophical dissertations are not only useless, they're boring as well.

    2. Science was constructed by, rests its foundations on, and is itself a philosophy. I think you must be using the lay notion of what philosophy is, some sort of old man with a pipe dreaming about complicated irrelevancies. This is not what philosophy is about: many of the greatest names in science, are philosophers (eg Karl Popper, who introduced the critical idea of falsifiability to modern science) because it is philosophy that constructed science and continues to develop it even in modern times (which is why I chose Popper as an example).

    3. Sure the early scientists were philosohers and in writing about how the concept of evolution could be falsified empirically (i.e., disproved), Darwin, a hands-on scientist, preceded Popper's empirical falsification.

      We don't need philosophers, only those who do.

    4. What you aren't grasping here is that the scientific method is, itself, a product of philosophy. It's not just that the early scientists were philosophers (heck, its not just the early ones, many of today's most brilliant "hands-on" scientists are philosophers, developing not only their fields but the intellectual tools of science as well), it's that science itself is a creation of philosophy and is constantly under modification by philosophy (particularly branches like epistomology and such).
      Darwin may have had a rough instinct similar to Popper's empiricism, but it was not articulated as an underlying doctrine of science and certainly not part of the formal process of science in his day.
      No philosophers means no empiricism, no formal logics, none of the things necessary for science.

    5. Modern science and its underlying empiricism were born from research and the conclusions therefrom. Evolution , physics, biology, etc. were not philosophized into existence. So you have things backwards.

      It is of no importance that Darwin did not articulate the means by which evolution could be falsified as a philosophic principle. It is simply enough that he articulated it and more important, that his articulation was based on hands-on experience and physical evidence, not the armchair cogitations of some philosopher.

      Newly-obtained evidence, not philosophy, is responsible for modification of science. In no way can philosophy claim responsibility for quantum mechanics which came about through physical observation, as did particle physics, as did laser technology.

      Philosophy has contributed nothing worth mentioning to any modern science and the philosophies of those scientists who have made major contributions are nothing compared to the contributions themselves. All that matters is their accomplishments--and philosophy is as much an accomplishment as reviewing a movie.

    6. Wrong. Empiricism is not a product of experimental "research", it is a direct product of epistemology (a branch of philosophy concerned with what constitutes real knowledge). Aristotle was the first to advocate it, not because of the results of any experiment, but as part of a work on the validity of statements or arguments called the Organon, which is most certainly a philosophical work, and has absolutely nothing to do with any experiments. Read it for yourself and see. That's exactly where it came from - not vague assertions that it came from unnamed "experiments." You don't know what you're talking about, apparently. Which experiments? What research? Who? These things you don't know; because there are none. You just made up the idea that they came from mystery "research" because that's what you want to believe.

      You think like a witchdoctor; no evidence (or look for evidence to support a conclusion you made before you had any), just make stuff up that you want to be true, and pretend you know what you're talking about whether you do or not.

      "Newly obtained evidence" does not now, and never has, modify the way science is done, the process of science. It only alters the products of science - not processes like empiricism, the scientific method, falsfiability, or any other processes. You have confused the products and the process - it's like saying that factories are created by the things they make, rather than the other way around. This is most apparent when you rattle off the *products* of science (evolution, physics etc), apparently incapable of comprehending a difference between them and the *process* of science. What experiment, exactly, created the modern scientific method? None. It too was a product of philosophy. Aristotle proposed a type of empiricism in ancient times, but it had problems because it was based in syllogism and therefore could not establish anything with certainty.

      Francisco Sanches (also a philosopher) discovered the problem, and Francis Bacon (another philosopher) worked out a solution to the problem of Aristotle's syllogistic empiricism in the philosophical treatise Novum Organum (new method) which was the foundation of the scientific method for several centuries.

      Until Popper (philosopher) came along and revolutionized modern science by saying that induction did not exist in science, it was all deductive, operating by a simple process of trial and error which he formalized into the concept of falsifiability.

      But you can claim it came from unspecified "research" if it makes you feel better.

    7. Nonsense, as I stated, the empiricsm of science came from research and the conclusions therefrom, e.g., the invention of the wheel, the use of fire, the development of the slingshot , bow and arrow. The process of science simply evolved through trial and error. All the philosophers did was try to codify it--nothing more.

      So what if Popper stated that science was all deductive? Any hands-on scientist worth his salt at the time and previously knew this. It did not lead to any new scientific discoveries nor did the scientific methodology. Francis Bacon's solution to Aristotle's syllogistic empiricism adds nothing to physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy etc. It also doesn't create vaccines, cure disease or facilitate research, just some of things that science is known for.

      Darwin, Jenner, Teller, Pasteur, Salk, etc., i.e., the people who did, contributed more to science than any philosopher--and it wasn't through their philosophy. he only people who deserve credit are the doers, not the laid-back thinkers.

      In short, science doesn't need philosophy or philosophers. It does just fine on its own.

    8. Empiricism did not exist in any formal sense at the time of the discovery of the wheel, fire, etc. These were not the product of "scientific research" either - they were accidental discoveries by primitive, superstitious peoples with little or no understanding of formal logics, who couldn't distinguish between empiricism, and supernatural beliefs. To compare this to modern scientific experimentation is like saying a monkey who uses a stick to catch ants, is a scientist.

      The first glimmer of empiricism began with Aristotle. Only in trailer parks is there any dispute about this.

      To say that the scientific method did not have a hand in scientific discovery is utterly ridiculous.

      Your characterization of Francis Bacon, Popper, etc as "laid back thinkers" and not "doers" further illustrates a cartoonish understanding of the history of science, suited perhaps to some creationist drivel but having no place in any journals of science - and, thanks to peer review, you will never find it in one.

    9. Again, nonsense. Back in primitive times, everything could be characterized as an accidental discovery, empirical in the sense that it was hard evidence. Then came further understanding and refinements, many times by trial and error, but also empirical. This is no different in nature than the discovery and refinement of quantum mechanics, microwaves, particle physics, etc. And we didn't need philosophers to accomplish this. Empiricsm was around long before Aristotle who did no more than attempt to codify what went before him. He did not invent it.

      Now tell me just what direct role philosophy played in medicine, physics, biology, quantum mechanics and technology other than occupying the peanut gallery?

      The history of science is the history of doers, not philosophers.

    10. The history of science does include many philosophers like Francis Bacon, Aristotle, and Popper, whether you like it or not, and no matter how many times you chant your mantra about "doers", gleaned, I suspect with some certainty, from a particular episode of The Beverly Hillbillies (one of Jed Clampett's lines, I believe). Any introductory course on the subject will not fail to teach about Aristotle, Bacon, Popper etc, in any college or university on the entire planet. Maybe you can start a campaign to have them erased from the curriculum. You can start by emailing the History of Science Department at Harvard at this address: hsdept@fas.harvard.edu and you can tell them that neither Aristotle, Francis Bacon, or Karl Popper are part of the history of science. Or perhaps you can rewrite their textbooks for them, to edit out all the philosophers, and replace them with a few lines from popular sitcoms about migrant bumpkins. I'm sure you know more about the subject than everyone in the world who teaches it professionally.

      Right?

    11. While methodology is paramount, it was developed by doers, i.e., scientists themselves, not philosophers who merely sat back and smugly wrote about it and while you do not need to use strict methodology to discover fire, you certainly need to be able to put it to good use and this methodology comes about through one thing, pragmatism, i.e., what works--and for that, the last thing needed is a philosopher.

      Once again, tell me just what direct role philosophy played in medicine, physics, biology and technology other than occupying the peanut gallery? And by the way, the methodology employed in quantum mechanics was developed by the scientists (the doers) themselves, not some philosopher.

      Ludwig von Beethoven didn't need philosophers of music to write the Ninth Symphony. Alfred Hitchcock did not need philosophers of cinema to turn out Psycho. Miguel Cervantes did not need philosophers of literature to compose Don Quixote, Pablo Picasso did not need philosophers to paint Guernica and scientists do not need philosohers to assist them in their discoveries and inventions. In short, philosophers are no more than the tin can on the tail of the dog.

      The doers are the thinkers and the thinkers are the doers. And doing might just be something you struggle with because you lack the ability to perform.

    12. Everyone "does" so "doers" is a nonsense term.

      Methodology was developed by people like Francis Bacon (ie the scientific METHOD). Many other methods were developed by philosophers. The entire field of formal logics was developed by philosophers as a method to determine the truth-value of a statement; today, it forms the backbone of some of our highest technologies such as computer sciences, and it is used in every form of valid methodology which exists in any field of science. Physics, biology, all of them.

      This is very, very simple. It's not that hard to understand.

      It is the history of science that is taught in every university on the planet - but it's hardly rocket science, all it requires is the most minimal amount of common sense. It simply isn't that difficult to grasp that the scientific method is, well, a method that is used in science. The name should probably clue you in.

      If you have some revolutionary new theory that says that the likes of Francis Bacon played no part in the development of science, and that "methodology is paramount" but the entire scientific method doesn't count as a method somehow, go publish it and submit it to peer review. But I can tell you, you'll get laughed out of the room as the crackpot you apparently are.

      I bid you adieu and good luck crossing the pons asinorum - you'll need it.

    13. You still haven't answered the question: what direct role did philosophy play in medicine, physics, biology and technology ("formal logics" doesn't cut it) other than occupying the peanut gallery, just like movie and music critics. Any scientist (doer) worth his salt doesn't need a philosopher to tell him what to look for or how to look for it.

      Now, where did I state that the scientific method doesn't count as a method at all? I resent the misrepresentation.

    14. it all started as philosophy ( eg. England: Natural Philosophy) the theory about atoms was proposed in ancient Rome by a philosopher name Lucretius. In ancient Greece, (egypt. the library of Alexandria) the first steam engine was created by the philosopher named Heron. I can go on and on.

      p.s. you have not attended the University. if you did you would probably resist from making such unintelligent arguments.
      P.P. s. PhD stands for what?

    15. Lucretius was not a philosopher; he was a poet of whom we have only one work "De Rerum Ratura" and about whom we know nothing except for a brief line from St. Jerome. And no, atomic theory was propounded Democritus and Epicureans who lived several centuries before Lucretius.

      Heron was not a philosopher, but a mathematician and engineer out of whose extant works not one is on philosophy.

      In short, you don't know what you're talking about. In short, you seriously need an education. In short, so what oi Ph.D. stands for doctor of philosophy. It is simply a monniker, as is natural philosohy, and nothing more.

  11. I get really bored already with when people speak about deficiency of vegan and vegetarian diets. I mean, compare what I eat with a plate of meat and potatoes. What are deficiencies in an meat-eaters diet I ask? Tell me that! I eat such a diversity of foods no meat-eater will ever taste in their life-time. So please, please, stop talking about my diet being deficient and look at your plate! Stop looking over the fence into your neighbour's backyard to resolve your personal problems, and take a look at your own backyard first! That's really pitiful. Thankfully, your doco is not entirely illogical, on the contrary - I agree with the big majority of what you've said, but sure there are some things where you go overboard with your logic and complacency with everything that public media serves you, instead of using your own logic. I actually really liked about the 70-80% of what's been said in this... this narrated 2h slideshow, but also really hated and thought of it as a complete nonsense for about 10-20%, and not entirely agreed with about 20-30%. I'm worried that you're trying to push some real garbage like GMO as "complete truth, good for you", by masking it, wrapping it in lots of true facts, using the good old "the best, most transparent lie is the one wrapped in truth". It makes me ask myself "what's your agenda?" There must be one. Nobody makes things like this for ethical reasons, not in this world where capitalism rules everyone's behaviour and actions.

    1. So let me get this straight:

      You liked everything except the parts that affect your beliefs (In spite of the author critizising RAW DIETS and not vegetarian/vegan diets), accuse the author of focusing on your problems to avoid solving his (thereby making assumptions about the author's character and life on the basis of your disagreement with him alone), of going "overboard with your logic" and at the same time not "using your own logic" (mutually exclusive propositions), pushing GMO (GMO was NEVER MENTIONED in the video AFAIK), and having a hidden agenda.

      ...Not sure if that's clever irony or if you're that immune to cognitive dissonance.

    2. " So please, please, stop talking about my diet being deficient and look at your plate! Stop looking over the fence into your neighbour's backyard to resolve your personal problems, and take a look at your own backyard first! "

      Gimme a break, you act as if it isn't the Vegan side doing the preaching and moralizing 90% of the time.
      As for "deficiencies" think about this... virtually every vegan who says "humans don't need meat in their diets, they can get all their nutrients without meat products" says so as an adult who converted at the earliest in their teens, if not when they were adults. Yep, you could probably fit in a room all the Vegans who had strict Vegans as parents and raised them on a Vegan diet.
      Furthermore a Vegan diet is very expensive, and replacing necessary meat products for growing children would most likely outstrip the agricultural capacity of any society.
      Basically, a Vegan diet is great for yuppies who like hollow self righteous posturing! It's not for folks who live in reality.
      Finally, about that moral aspect thing... you do know lions and tigers and bears... eat people? (I do hear they like Vegans the most!)

  12. The reason why scientist believe that the higgs boson exists is because there is actually a good reason to do so. The standard model has been called the theory of almost everything since it has been so successful in its predictions but it does not explain how particles gain their mass. Higgs is a key building block of this highly successful theory and also explains this problem (and other stuff too). This is the reason why they believe in its existence. What the bible says fits no scientific theory or what we know about the universe and has no good evidence to back it. To say that we believe in the existence of higgs because of faith is just stupid. The definition of faith (or one one them is) "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Since there is actually evidence and a logical reason to believe in the existence higgs it is not faith.

    1. Absolutely and even if the Higgs Boson particle were found not to exist, such a failure would only re-enforce the demonstrative nature of science, the complete antipode to faith.

  13. We must rid our society's of cult-like thinking before true rational thinking on a national level can be attained.

    I would also like to add that terms like 'anti-Semite' and 'political correctness' are often used to dismiss logical arguments.

  14. Well to begin with it takes faith to believe that Higgs-Boson is a fact. if you want to talk about faith in Science, I believe that we should have that. For instance scientists have faith that the Higgs-Boson hypothetical elementary particle exists, because it is the basic particle to determine mass in particle physics. But they cannot prove it, and so now they have built the multimillion dollar Hadron collider in attempts to find it. It is still elusive. Now that is critical thinking outside the box, but it takes faith to believe in this concept that scientists have been talking about for 40 years-the same kind of faith that it takes to believe in intelligent design

    1. As research is being conducted into whether the Higgs-Boson particle exists, faith has as much to do with it as the fallacious concept of thinking "outside the box." It is particularly repellent to read of attempts to debase science to the level of intelligent design.

    2. Mom
      when you state "Well to begin with it takes faith to believe that Higgs-Boson is a fact" could you show me where a scientist claimed it was a fact (up until recently of course)? and the first couple of papers concerning the actual discovery of the higgs have passed peer review. so we have found it and others can repeat the experiments to see for themselves.
      believing in ID not only requires faith but also requires either complete ignorance of science or a misrepresentation of scientific facts in order to believe.

  15. I'm an engineer and science fan; I apply logic and reason to the daily problems I face. But I'm not sure why the general public not knowing an electron is a component of the larger atom is important. I don't why folks being unaware of the reason for summer being warmer is important. It's not even important that the layman doesn't know viruses are unaffected by antibiotics. What's important is that they trust the doctor that advises the use or non use of them. The doctor is the logical scientist. The problems occur when a pseudoscientist convinces a cancer patient to give up a proven treatment to go with a treatment based on folklore. It's important when home scientists 'discover' a 'new energy source that's infinite' and can tell the world this through the internet that we are being used by those that are in the pockets of the oil barons. Similarly uninformed people then believe this and it entices hatred; that's bad.

    But the problem goes deeper. Any engineer, scientist or other logical person can see that news can be reported in a way that benefits the reporter (dihydrogen monoxide sounds really bad until you find out it's water). There are many people in the general public that believe what is fed to them. And when a government does this to gain or remain in power, it's little surprise to see that the public-at-large know so little. Take global warming as an example. We're told that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it's slowly destroying our planet. We're told that it's our reliance on fossile fuels that causes it. We can even see figures that show us how much CO2 we spew into the atmosphere. But having looked at both sides of the argument, my conclusion is simple; the information is inconclusive. How many people know it's a vital part of our atmosphere? That'd be a better question to ask in the telephone surveys. I've tried to be open-minded about this subject but with the convincing arguments I've found from both camps, I simply can't make up my mind so I stay open about both ideas. But most people won't do this. They'll take on what they've been told about in the press and by their leaders. Like, smoking causes lung cancer. I've no doubt that it does but this resulted in an unhappy diner in a restaurant attacking another for smoking and claiming that the smoke will, that's WILL, cause cancer in a young child that was there. He knew the truth about the risks but took it too far.

    So, quite simply, give the people only the important information and make sure no-one abuses it for their own gain and let those that want to understand science understand it without criticising those that aren't bothered. 'With great power comes great responsibility' - Unknown.

    1. There's a documentary on global warming on this site. In it two groups of equally reputable scientists examine the same data and come up with two different conclusions. Therefore, like you, I'm on the fence as to this issue. One way or the other, that's what's science is all about.

      Your last paragraph is an awfully tall order. How do you expect to carry it out?

    2. Thankfully, I'm in no position to enable distribution of the correct information. I'm not daft; it'll never happen but if the public will absorb the information given to them (because it said so in the newspaper), the information ought to be correct. I just think some of the comments and aghast in the video because of people's ignorance, is a little harsh. Does it matter that a potential president doesn't believe in evolution? Can he make good decisions in difficult circumstances and help build a better country? Who knows, but my point is that, who cares if the someone doesn't have a grasp of science? Who cares if the popular reality TV programmes are about the paranormal? The TV stations need to make money and the people prefer to see those kinds of shows. It makes me cringe but it doesn't bother me. I imagine many of the people that enjoy watching them are excellent parents or do great work for the community.

      I suppose, we should be brought up to respect authority (so long as the authoritarians respect it, too), trust your presidential candidate or minister of parliament (so long as they are honest) and trust your doctor.

      It's an impossibly tall order, I agree.

    3. It goes deeper than that. A presidential candidate who doesn't believe in evolution is one who places his religion before science--I certainly don't want this individual making important decisions.

      P.S. I can't stand the other guy either. So this is not a political statement.

    4. Haha, I hope you realize that politicians are professional liars, and there is a high probability a candidate may say he is religious but secretly has atheist or agnostic beliefs.
      (I can't believe how many people, at election time, obsess over a politician being a liar or being honest. Why do you think the two most common transition careers for these people are actors and lawyers? Both professional liars? Any politician who can be considered honest is really just the best at lying! And pity the constituents of the congressional district who really does vote in an honest person who won't steal or take bribes. When he gets to Washington their district will be cut out of all kinds of projects and federal money because their boy won't play ball the way the game is played there.)

  16. Look I've ran out of time. I didn't make the quotes up. God doesn't play dice, that's about as famous a quote as I can think of.

    Anyway there is a lot to be said for cold hard facts. I agree.

    I hope you consider how hard it is to not think for thirty seconds and why. Very very few people can do that. I can't and I've been at most of my life. So that is a bit unfair of me. Very rewarding though to practice awareness of oneself. Try it next time you brush your teeth.

    1. If you don't provide the sources (contexts), your quotes are suspect. When Einstein allegedly said, "God doesn't play dice," he was not affirming the existence of a supreme being, but rather was railing to Niels Bohr against the uncertainty principle of quantum physics.

      I'm with myself every waking moment, so I'm quite cognizant of self-awareness--as is everyone else.

  17. Obviously you can't sit and and not think for thirty seconds. Your answer to this is to say I don't have an education, I'm ignorant etc. Then again you obviously think that the quotes from Eisenstein Max Plank Schrödinger etc are all crap because they don't fit what you choose to believe. So end of discussion. Nice to be able to cherry pick what you want from these guys.

    By the way your the only one commenting on what I said. I don't see anyone else commenting. Watch yourself.

    1. You misrepresented Einstein and PlanCk. You did not provide sources for your quotes from any of those you named. So yes, your quotes are crap--and it has nothing to do with what I "choose" to believe, but rather your attempt to use these people as authority for what you choose to believe and what you can't support with the hard evidence you despise so much, probably because it shows you up for what you are.

      So what if I can't sit and not think for thirty seconds--at least my mind is going which is more than I can say for yours.

  18. Your hard evidence exists only in your mind. Because at the end of the day all that exists is your consciousness. E=MC2 is not the same as experiencing an atomic bomb. Close your eyes and the world disappears. Your hard evidence is simply a thought in your head. Thoughts come and go. Who you are comes and goes. But for that you need to really watch your thinking. All of it.

    Yogis have control over their automatic nervous system once though impossible by science. It's where biofeedback techniques used to control high blood pressure come from.

    Acupuncture works. It's a proven medical technique and the philosophy behind it is Taoism.

    But I'm sure that this means nothing to you so will end this discussion.

    1. No. By definition, hard evidence is not in the mind (i.e., delusional) any more than the pebble on which i stubbed my foot yesterday or a fossil lying in the middle of a desert.

      And no, acupuncture it not a proven medical technique. I've just been reading about it and the jury is still out as it is with biofeedback. So don't try to snow me.

      A mathematical formula is merely a codification or representation of an activity or phenomenon. It is not the real thing and is not passed off to be. So your statement as to Einstein's notorious formula is meaningless.

      You're right this gibberish of yours means nothing to me.

    2. You live with yourself 24/7. Hard evidence is merely a curiosity. At the end of the day knowing one self trumps any hard evidence that may or may not be true.

    3. Try setting a broken bone with only self-awarness and no hard evidence. Try driving a car with only self-awareness and no hard evidence. Try brushing your teeth with only self-awareness and no hard evidence. As a matter of fact, try getting through the day with only self-awareness and no hard evidence.

      And no, by nature and definition, hard evidence is always true.

      In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

    4. I bet you don't even think about it when you brush your teeth. You simply go ahead and do it day dreaming about hard evidence. Most of your day your on autopilot. You drive your car chatting to your buddy. Your problem is you don't know what self awareness is. You really don't know what I'm talking about so you have to call it crap. Try sitting and not thinking. I bet your first reaction is fear, although you won't even give yourself time to experience that as you go into justification to keep thinking. If you can't do this simple exercise then you have no right to judge or comment on it. Just think of it as a mystery that you will never experience.

    5. Your problem is that you have nothing even approaching an education. This is apparent not only from your posts to me but from the responses you have received from others.

      Once again, everything you've written is nothing more than a load of ignorance-supporting crap--and you don't even possess the intelligence to know what you're talking about.

  19. It's not my wishful thinking. That's why the quotes. Maybe should straighten these guys out on what is and what isn't science.

    mind and matter are abstractions from the universal flux (David Bohm.

    Physics most strongly insists that its methods do not penetrate behind the symbolism. Surely then that mental and spiritual nature of ourselves …
    supplies just that … which science is admittedly unable to give (Sir Arthur Eddignton

    our science – Greek science – is based on objectification… But I do believe that this is precisely the point where our present way of thinking does need to be amended, perhaps by a bit of blood transfusion from Eastern thought (Erwin Schrödinger

    Look up this guy Amit Goswami, Ph. D. He's a theoretical physicist. He also connects quantum theory to Eastern views. You don't have to agree but please don't dismiss them out of hand.

    If you respect science then keep an open mind. You don't like authority. Well what do you really know that you haven't read or heard from someone. Anything?

    1. It is indeed your wishful thinking, but one way or the other, the only thing that matters is the hard evidence and speaking of hard evidence, can you prove that we even have a "spiritual nature of ourselves." Somebody's saying so means as much as "keeping an open mind."

    2. The somebodies are the movers and shakers of physics. They've made these statements after working in science their entire lives based on their discoveries. What you want is a mathematical formula that equals god or whatever. Proof of spirituality. That is something each person has to do for themselves. Nobody can do it for you. It doesn't exist in a mathematical formula. Words are poor substitutes for ones own experience. Eastern spirituality says it's very very simple. Live in the here now. But try it. Try not thinking. After you fail that try simply watching the content of your own mind until it goes quiet. It will probably take the rest of your life. Belief for or against something has nothing to do with it. It is simply experiencing your own consciousness.

    3. These somebodies in physics worked with hard evidence and the results they obtained were result of their work with hard evidence, not their so-called spirituality. Whatever chimera they happen to entertain on the side is irrelevant and meaningless. So spare me the crap about consciousness, spirituality, unverifiable experiences, watching the content of one's mind (whatever that means) etc. If you can't provide hard evidence, forget it.

  20. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
    Max Plank.
    Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
    Albert Einstein

    1. And just what are these quotes from authority intended to prove?

    2. Even the greatest of scientists have a spiritual side. Maybe it's not very scientific and all wishful emotion. But still, there it is they said it. If atheists are so willing to condemn they should start in their own scientific back yard. For me god is a word, open to whatever interpretation you want to give it. But I hate to see existence boiled down to some puny mathematical formula. I hope people keep the mystery of life alive.

    3. Your wishful thinking has nothing to do with science and the sooner you realize it the better.

  21. "Science, in view of some thousands of years of recorded history, has come only recently into existence. One after another, areas of thought once under the rule of opinion, philosophy and superstition have been invaded and conquered by the methods of factual observation and analysis. Today, only one major field remains unconquered by the methodology of science: the so called 'social studies.' The relationship between man and other men and between men and their physical environment is still a ripe field for numerous studious opinions and learned ignorance.

    Technocracy is advancing the frontier of science to this last stronghold of the past. Technocracy uses the same analytic and synthetic processes on the world of today as the scientist uses in his laboratory. Technocracy uses these methods not on a beaker of chemicals or a cage of white mice, but upon an entire Continent, and upon those aspects of the rest of the world which affect this Continent. Some of the findings of Technocracy aren't particularly well-liked, even by Technocrats; but what we like and what we don't like about the world around us doesn't change the fact of its existence. Technocrats have learned to face the facts and follow the facts, regardless of whether their previous conditioning causes them to like or dislike these facts."

  22. it's not that abstruse that he believed to combine both to a certain extent,philosophical of course.he knew that the scriptures couldn't be taken word for word but suspected some sort of intelligent design,giving humanity a deeper cause.more hope than knowledge,if you will.i missed the part of his latent homosexuality,you never stop learning,do you!?!

  23. Haha I love Newton. The guy was bonkers. It seems unreasonable to judge him as either a christian or a scientist once you know that he was also gay and an alchemist.....oh and a really vicious counterfeitting investigator.

    You can't say that he was strongly christian while reading his instructions for creating a temple, using a single stone, which you have to climb into using a snake so that you can gain wisdom from a priest who's changed the colour of nature and turned himself into silver.

    Newton kept his alchemical work secret and it was only discovered after his death. He seemed to be afraid of being found out. In my mind this would mean that you have to take his more christian writings with a pinch of salt as he was trying to cover his tracks. You didn't want to be a blashpemer in the 1600.
    It's interesting though, that the church or society didn't seem to have a problem with him being in love with Fatio de duillier.

    I can of course claim that this is all on topic, because I'm applying critical thinking to the idea that Newton was christian and it's effect on his work....... teehee

  24. back to topic,how can critical thinking be implemented back into basic schooling as this seems to be neglected beyond rationale & which status quo will a society reach that is formed by a generation of conformed intellect?

  25. philosophy
    the use of reason & arguement in seeking the truth & knowledge of reality,esp. of the causes & nature of things & of the principles governing existence,the material universe,perception of physical phenomena,& human behaviour ....(oxford concise)

    1. What happened to hard evidence?

  26. I think we're havng a misunderstanding on the definition of philosophy here.

    I think RobertAllen is seeing Descartes while dxmi is seeing Copernicus.

    In which case both of them are right in their view but we're all clashing on a general understanding of what is meant by "philosophy".

    1. Perhaps you're right. I respect Copernicus, not so much because he turned out to be right, but because his writings, like Galileo's, are grounded in the herein and now, not some hinterland. I respect Descartes and Pascal as mathematicians--how can we get along without Cartesan coordinates or Pascal's triangle--but their philosophical writings are mere navel contemplation along with others such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, large parts of Aristotle, Plato, Spinoza and many more. Newton is half and half. His mathematical and scientific writings which are really what he is known by today (who cares about his religious excursions?) are wonderful, brilliant and, right or wrong, one of the greatest influences on modern science--but again, this is the herein and now.

  27. This really has nothing to do with critical thinking. Just like religious doctrine it tells you to believe a set of values or "truths", that coincide with the general consensus of the establishment. Instead of showing you where to look, it tells you what to see. Even if science is based on fact there are still many contested theories such as the big bang and evolution, this is why they are known as theories. Regardless if they are true or not, mainstream science will outright dismiss any questions regarding the alternatives based on the current paradigm. It's evident that in the past a complete shift of scientific leaders was needed to even get these alternative questions to the table and it is no different today. There is more politics in science than politics itself.

    1. Chris Collins
      what are these "alternative questions"? also when you state "theories such as the big bang and evolution, this is why they are known as theories" you do realize that theory is as high as an explanation of fact can go in science? when you say "get these alternative questions to the table " do you mean get these ideas presented as science?

    2. @Chris Collins,

      "...this is why they are known as theories."

      facepalm

    3. Wrong neither evolution nor the big bang is a contested theory. Wrong, consensus has little to do with it, but scientific (hard) evidence can and has upset consensus (e.g., techtonic plates).

      And just what in your mind is the "current paradigm?" I can think of only two, the natural world and scientific proof. Just which alternatives are you referring to? Just where do you get your conceit that mainstream science tells you what to see rather than where to look. How many science courses have you taken? How much science have you studied?

      It's particularly insulting when someone like you who obviously has no idea what science is about attempts to debase it to the gutter of religion. Before you comment further, I suggest that you read up on what a scientific theory is and how science works and then write about it--reversing the process results in a post as inane and ignorant as yours.

  28. again,you're missing the point....our modern day statue is based on passed fallacies,beginning with greek philosophers which built on observations of the unknown giving the first examples of quantifying the measurable 'unknown'.....which ,in context intertwines every knowledge we enjoy today!an open mind will except this....a closed mind will ignore this as critical thinking has become a virtue of a new class with their eyes locked to
    the 'now' & forgetting the possibility of an unknown tomorrow.i'm not interested if i'm right as you're that i'm wrong........again,i just marvel at the options that life supplies as science kills individuality in a technocratic
    world (state of the nation)...as for anatomy,it was a philisophical creed that
    dared to proceed & publish;gravity was explored by a theosophical believer & geology came about the same time (can't name the person now) & I'm sure they had a religious background,meaning they at least frequented a church sometimes.

    1. So you've resorted to gibberish--won't wash. No philosopher has contributed anything in his philosophical capacity to anatomy, gravity, geology, biology, physics, etc.

      And please spare us the self-serving statement about open and closed minds. That tack won't wash either.

    2. i will make my self clear...the root of science lies in philosophical assertions which moulded the first steps for the laws of observation to create valid results.nothing more,nothing less!the art of questioning the natural surroundings led to cognative & physical understanding of our realm.for philosophy itself...it truly did not benefit science ,except for serving as 'soulfood' for scientists before taking a nap or for recitation to impress the opposite gender (& then take a nap)!

    3. So you're saying that the root of anatomy lies in philosophic assertions. Just how do you think the physicians of the ancient world treated a broken bone, by philosophizing over it? What about Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Anaxagorus, Hippocrites, Democritus and Euclid, did they philosophize first or did they roll up their sleeves and directly investigate, leaving others to philosophize after them like tin cans on the tail of a dog?

      In short, philosophy is as useless in the sciences and as it is in the arts.

    4. @robertallen1,

      Almost all scientists in the past were natural philosophers. Back then almost every scientific thought was starting with philosophical idea. Newton himself was natural philosopher. The word physicist didn't even exist.

      For example Epicurus, besides his regular contributions, made quite stunning armchair scientific predictions. Today many of them came true.

      However today the picture is very different. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it well:

      "Up until early 20th century, philosophers had material contributions to make to the physical sciences. So, what happens is the 1920s come in. We learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which falls so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair that the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientist were rendered essentially obsolete at that point. Philosophy has basically parted ways from the frontier of the physical sciences."

    5. I admit that orthopedists, internists and obstetricians were unheard of in ancient societies and they were all known by the general rubric of philosopher. However, It's difficult to imagine anatomy starting off as natural philosophy. When a bone is broken, you set it; you don't philosophize about it first. When someone is bitten by a venemous snake, you don't philosophize about it, you try to get the venom out. When a baby is to be delivered, you roll up your sleeves and help the population explosion along; you don't philosophize about it first.

      True, Epicurus made some armchair scientific predictions which panned out. First of all how many armchair scientific predictions by Epucurus or others have not panned out? Secondly what direct contribution did Epicurus make to what he predicted or are his armchair predictions enough? Jules Verne wrote about submarines, but he certainly did not contribute to their development and it seems highly unlikely that they were developed as a result of his works.

      True, Newton was a natural philosopher (as you so correctly put it, the term physicist, like the term mathematician, had not yet come into being). However, that term seems to have been an all-purpose monniker to describe a multitude of vocations. One way or the other, his major contributions consist of putting his thoughts into action--i.e., what he did.

      I agree with Dr. Tyson. Philosophy is no longer the bedfellow of science and probably this parting of the ways started a few centuries back--then why do we see all too much of this irrelevant juxtaposition now?

    6. i'm saying that thought is precursory to action & you haven't read my comment correctly as i stated which worth philosophy has to modern science....but also how it had it's passed passive contributions.i see vlatko partially agrees,maybe he can convey it better to you.

    7. If you're saying that it's best to think about something before you do it, fine--but is that philosophy?

    8. i know what you mean.we have a different definition of the word philosophy.i have a broad sense of the meaning whilst you prefer it by it's artistic usage (which can make one shrug,if one has to endure it's recitation or literature).

    9. Please see my response to RIKGo1. Perhaps you're right.

    10. or both?

    11. Whether they went to church or not is irrelevent. It doesn't change the nature of the universe and we can't say if they were inspired by the belief that was forced upon them or not, because we weren't there. Most scientists who had religious backgrounds, only had them because that's the way they were raised or the time the were born into. They didn't have a choice about it retroactively.

      Darwin wasn't raised atheist and then woke up one morning after discovering Evolution by Natural Selection and thought, "hmmm I think I want to have a religious background, better change my entire history". He didn't then hop in a time machine and convice his parents to raise him in Christianity.

      Newton wasn't raised without religion, then after calculating gravity stopped and though "hmmm this non-religious background doesn't suit me. I'll change my history through alchemy". He didn't then drug the world with a potion to make it seem like he'd been religious, growing up.
      *NB should add that, had Newton been raised and thought this way..he would probably have tried....crazy bas***d.

      They had no choice, ergo we can't say whether or not it was a factor. Who knows if people will make different choices if they are raised differently. Without being able to look into a parallel dimesnion where they did have those options, we'll never know. And until then, it's conjecture and therfor entirely irrelevent.

      You're right that philosophy was the origin of science but that doesn't change the fact that it's not scientific, at least, not philosphy in the modern, broad sense of the word.

      Aristotle's ideas formed the basic understanding of the universe for a very long time but only because the church threatened to murder anyone who proved them wrong. Galileo for example, was given the choice of renouncing his discovery of moons around jupiter, or be murdered. They still had him under house arrest for disclosing fact in the first place.

      To the church, Aristotle's idea that everything had a god given place, was VERY useful. They didn't want to lose that power.
      Aristotle was eventually proven wrong about many things (despite the church, not in thanks to it), but we're still thankful for his contributions, especially to logic and math's. That doesn't change the fact he and philosphy, were very, very wrong.

      Philosophy is great for the imagination. It allows you to imagine worlds but is not a substitute for science and doesn't create true understanding this world, the world that exists. Only create fantasy around it.

    12. Hence it is as useless in science as it is in the arts.

  29. thats why i '>smirked<' my comment...i thought it was obvious.i prefer a philosophical approach to the scientific 'unknowns' as it serves a multitude
    of options which abode the human spirit to reach further beyond the status quo,if you will....but that is only my humble approach to this subject.sorry,that i confused you.

    1. Philosophy proves nothing.

    2. philosophy proves that the human nature can think out of the box.

    3. Wrong. Any child can imagine something. Philosophy has done nothing for science and for that matter little for anything else.

    4. now thats what i call conjecture as the 'greeks' would beg to differ.the history of science is built upon philosophy(natural observation),or not?most hypothesis had a philosophical foundation which led it to modern science.....(again),or not?

    5. What about anatomy, gravity, geology to name three. No, scientists have made science the marvel that it is, not navel-contemplating philosophers with really nothing to contribute.

  30. might want to give people a break on the big bang. as its a Theory and while I agree that its the best theory we have, it is not a Fact, as you say in the video.

    1. It's as much a theory as the theory of evolution.

    2. ...& the theories of multiple deities,universes & (believe it or not)
      unification of all put together.we're all subscribers to subjective thinking with a pinch of critical illusions.>smirk<

    3. Not in the scientific sense. You confuse theory with conjecture.

    4. "It's as much a theory as the theory of evolution."

      I challenge that, mate. Evolution is fact, the theory is 'Evolution by Natural Selection'.

      I know that you know the difference but some people need it stating. There's a lot of misunderstanding in the general public and particularly the religious, which means we have to be careful, clear and helpful.

    5. Thanks for the refinement which reflects Darwin's wonderful contribution, for the concept of evolution had been around sometime before Darwin. The problem is just getting them to realize that evolution is a fact--natural selection can come later.

      Just the other day, I was mentioning to Over the Edge that one of the great things about the scientists of yesteryear is that they might have started off as creationists, but when the evidence contradicted the beliefs in which they had been inculcated since childhood, like true scientists, they went with the evidence. However, despite all that has been discovered since Darwin's time, there are too many who place their religion with its attendant philosophy over everything, a tragic case being Kurt Wise.

  31. disappointingly shallow

  32. I've deleted lots of comments. Stay on topic, without insults, accusations etc. please.

  33. Creation scientists are perfectly capable to understanding and working with the observable forces on the earth and organism without accepting that those have occurred over millions of years. Science can be respected and utilized to its fullest without believing in macro-evolution.

    1. how?

      name ONE scientific experiment done to further substantiate creationism or intelligent design.

      in fact there is no such thing as "creation scientists" because creationism is not science it is make believe or wishful thinking.

    2. No way. Creation science is a contradiction in terms and quackery unmeritorious of any respect.

    3. Tom Rabbitt
      ok could you please define macro -evolution for me?

  34. My chiropractor has never tried to sell me herbal supplements. Just go through a proven physical routine that loses lactic acid between the muscles. It helps, he also tells me to drink more water. Sounds scientific to me.

    1. Unless you just exercised or are in some way ill, your muscles shouldn't be anaerobically respiring at rest (i.e. there shouldn't be any lactic acid). So he sounds fairly fraudulent just at that. Also drinking extra water does nothing for lactic acid, muscles or pretty much anything. The only way water would ever help you if you increased it is if your normal level of hydration had already hospitalised you.

  35. What a load of rubbish !!!

    Except the part about his mama coming from apes ,that explains
    a lot !!!

    1. Just what are you talking about?

    2. ......go watch ancient aliens or something more on your level.

  36. We may be energy first, flesh second. There may be a way for the self to access the noncorporeal directly. Is energy natural, corporeal or is it invisible and dynamic.
    1i

    1. Just what are you talking about?

    2. oQ,
      when you say "We may be energy first, flesh second" do you mean us as humans or the universe as a whole. the first i can address the second i will have to abstain as my knowledge in that subject is insufficient to provide a proper answer. again sorry for making this more difficult then it probably needs to be.

    3. It's my understanding there is little difference between energy and matter. If so then there is no first/second.

    4. Spacetime is real, it is a thing, not a nothing, not a non-corporeal. Before the BG there was non-corporeal, no spacetime, so in effect what you are getting at is you want the human animal to visualize and experience time before there was time, experience non-corporeal from our corporeal level, you may be able to think about all that from our third person perspective "but" never experience anything or even think about it from the first person perspective.

    5. Energy is natural and corporeal. There's this bizarre idea at the moment, especially amongs spiritualists, that "energy" is some free floating thing that can pop up anywhere. This is of course entirely untrue. There's a finite amount of energy available in our bodies and it would run out if we didn't get more through food.

      The sun's energy, the source of all energy on earth, is trapped and absorbed by plants, animals gain energy by eating those plants, we gain energy by eating those plants or the animals which ate them. Energy which isn't absorebd by something dissipates back into space as heat and refelcted light. Without a corporeal anchor, energy is lost.

      When we talk about sleeping to get energy, it's not the same thing. It's a process where our bodies recover using the energy available and continue to metabolise what we've already eaten or converted to fat, which is basically an energy storage medium.

      @Lahkotason Energy and matter are the same thing in that all matter was formed from the energy of stars....in the simplest way I can explain it.

    6. Exactly which is why I see red everytime an anti-evolutionists spuriously misemploy the laws of therodynamics to suit their ends.

    7. Ever heard of breatharianism? "living on light and other less dense material" First sentence on the first website I looked at :) I first heard about it years ago, a woman was interviewed on breakfast tv, she said she hadn't eaten any food for about three years. Not long after there was some trouble when a follower died of starvation.

    8. No, I haven't, but this is typical. Do you remember that fool who was trying to promote Dr. Sebi. It's the same thing, bees in bonnets.

    9. At the risk of being stomped on again: Even though the phrase 'non-corporeal awareness' may be incorrect, have you seen any of the research on non-invasive brain-computer interfaces?

    10. CAT scans?

    11. No, brain-computer interfaces. I'm going to suggest you wiki it, and scroll waaay down to see the section on 'non-invasive' types.

      I remembered seeing a short article about experiments with paraplegics using EEG to control a computer to type out sentences, although it was very slow, and took a long time to learn how to do.

      But it was back when the work was first being done and I'd forgotten about it until this morning. When I wiki'd it I realized how complex a field it is, including invasive as well as non-invasive procedures. Just a thought, really.

    12. Sounds like an attempt to harness electrical brain waves--nothing non-corporeal about that.

    13. Maybe not 'non' but perhaps 'extra'? (meaning that the effect is outside the body?) Just speculating here.

    14. When break the laser beam emitted by a security device which might trigger an abrupt visit by the local constabulary, that's also outside the body.--extra corporeal in your terms. Nothing unusual.

  37. What a difference a day makes!

    critical car thinking?
    1i

    1. Just imagine! a women in the throes of PMS, and (scorned... hell hath no fury), etc: etc:, would not want be around any womans critical cars that have that road rage ectoplasm, non-corporeal, spirits, whatever, from the womans consciousness that fills that car. hehe

    2. A sort of Stephen King's "Christine".

    3. My brother has often noted that some of the most aggressive drivers on the road turn out to be women.

      Have you ever used a waldo-type machine?

    4. hormis (French) the PMS, i think you'd have the ride of your life time! But most guys rather ride hard with scared women.
      1i

    5. Especially not after a comment like that! ;)

  38. Epicurus, Over_the_Edge, Achems_Razor

    In science, is there really a difference between a theory and a law? They seem to be saying and doing the same thing.

  39. Ok, kind of an answer to Achems_Razor but also to others. Here's an illustration:

    You have awareness? Yes?

    Do you drive a car or even larger vehicle?

    When you are in that vehicle, does your awareness expand to make that car or vehicle your new 'body'?

    Don't you become aware very quickly of where the edges of the vehicle are, and what its turning radius is and can judge how to turn a corner without hitting the curb or another vehicle?

    This is an observable, testable, falsifiable phenomenon. I've tested, observed and falsified it myself, and had others corroborate the same experience.

    Is that scientific enough for a non-corporeal awareness? After all, the vehicle is not your body. Yet your awareness expanded to fill it.

    I'm not defining 'non-corporeal awareness' any further than this since it was oQ's original statement that I have been so bold as to expand on.

    1. Sorry that will not fly with me, so if you hit the fender of your car, you will feel corporeal pain in the synopsis of your brain, because your awareness expands to fill the car.

      You might as well say that you are aware of the earth and your awareness expands to fill the earth. Snake oil!

    2. ...I missed the part where I said your nerve endings attached to the vehicle...

    3. lol, that's funny. All you are doing is when you become aware of you car and driving carefully is believe it or not, called critical thinking, you stayed on topic without even knowing it!

    4. Good point. I'd never thought about it that way--now if only Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton could come off their highs long enough to watch the video.

    5. I never intended to leave the topic =)

      You are saying that driving carefully is critical thinking. It is that, also. The idea of non-corporeal awareness and critical thinking are--strangely enough--not antithetical.

      Go one further, and think about someone operating heavy machinery that performs delicate tasks, like backhoes. At some point the operator stops thinking consciously about what they are doing to make the machine move, and operate it *as if* it were their own body. Their consciousness has expanded to fill the space of the machine. They then think critically about how to achieve their task, not about what levers to push or pull.

      I am remembering a study I've either seen or read about this. It is a very real phenomenon and there is a part of the brain that perceives the tool as an extension of itself. (I'll see if I can locate something on it, although my time is getting limited tonight.) IIRC, the brain has areas that are mapped to our extremities. My niece's husband drives big rigs and he finds it very difficult to come off a long trip and try to drive a car. He keeps trying to operate it as if it were a tractor-trailer. Edit: As if it had the *mass* of a tractor-trailor.

      I am saying that this phenomenon of our awareness inhabiting vehicles is a possible example of non-corporeal consciousness, and that it has actually got science behind it.

      It may not be the one oQ is positing, but it was just to demonstrate that her idea is not as idiotic as you want to paint it as being.

    6. What you've described is simply adaptation by rote just like brushing your teeth. You do it so often you don't think about it. There is nothing uncorporeal here, nothing a silly as operating a tooth brush as if it's your own body.

      In an effort to give credence to oQ (for whatever reason, I don't know), you're making far more of this than you need to and once again, you're grasping at straws.

    7. Then should you not consider that our evolution did not prepare us to drive vehicles. As far as I know we fully evolved in a wilderness. What you are saying is that we have evolved into a creature different from those homo sapiens which evolved in the wilderness?

    8. You are talking about levels of consciousness, as in your car scenario, when you give the car full awareness, it seems a part of your actions, but if you start thinking about other things or texting while you are driving, the autonomic nervous system will function to keep you on the road et al because of millions of years evolution of survival. The brain is a computer that will remember what actions to perform to a point and give that info to the body without full conscious awareness. (We have Ram) gigs. lol

      If a person falls to far in lapse of awareness then an accident may occur. Has nothing to do with some non-corporeal spirits floating around, yours or others taking control of the body.

      Again I say nothing but snake oil.

    9. Actually, you and robert are right in that we are tool-users. And we are utilizing that part of our brains which developed to use them, but in a much more sophisticated manner than our ancestors.

      I never said the car had 'full awareness', I said that our awareness expands to the limits of the vehicle we are in.

      Why is it such a leap to think that there is further possibilities in the same mechanism? I'm just demonstrating that an idea with no science to currently support it may come into its own at a later date in time, and can utilize already-existing mechanisms that we either don't currently know about, or don't fully understand yet, or may not know how to fully develop yet.

      However, I am off to keep you safe from dragons, however little you may appreciate my effort.

    10. "Our awareness expands to the limits of the vehicle we are in." Just what is that supposed to mean? Gibberish does not cut it or in the words of Achem, snake oil.

    11. Sometime you guys deliberately misread or don't read everything. I mentioned in a post below that I read a study on how our brains mentally change to inhabit vehicles. Its not pseudoscience, its real actual studies and IIRC included some type of brain scans to show how motor function changes. But it was a while back and I will have to dig to locate it.

      Just because you don't know about it yet doesn't make it snake oil. Which just sounds like nasty stuff, by the way. Ugh.

    12. And you deliberately mischaracterize. I simply said that there is nothing non-corporeal about it and I believe that Epicurus said the same thing. I'll go one step further and say that attempting to relegate it to the realm of the non-natural is sheer quackery.

    13. ...when did I relegate it to anything? I was using it as an example.

    14. As an example of what, something already well explained by science?

    15. Keep me safe from dragons? What are you, "G Girl"?

    16. Currently I am Kateye the King-Slayer. And tonight you may sleep soundly, the dragons are dead in Azeroth.

    17. I think you've sent this post to the wrong address - I'm certain.
      I do not own that car. I have never been in that car.

      I knew as soon as Kayete got into that bloody thing, I could see she was headed for big trouble, and as we know, she crashed, and the car's a right off.

      Mind you, even though that car was wobbly from the start, she did a pretty good job of driving what she had gotten herself into, of course the incoming pelted rocks didn't help her chances, especially once the windscreen was smashed, ditto about about the punctures from the nails on the roadway, then there those silly straw men jumping out in front her, and couple of clowns to, and so did a pair of red herrings - immediately they broke loose of the clowns cuddlings .

      But I digress, and back to my main point.

      Her car, her car is a scattered confused jumble on the side of the road,
      AND
      you want me to get into it. I will not get into that car. I do not own that car. I have never been in that car and I will not get into that car - ever.

      This suggestion of yours that I get into that car (and my congratulations to you) is now my brand new definition of the ultimate in ambitiousness. Thank you

      Now Achems_Razor, you have not addressed one, not even one, point about Thor & my Hero Doubters, you cannot be serious. Achems, I have no choice but to be blunt here: have you ever heard of:
      " A Fallacy of Relevance" ?

      Please, I do remember, that you mentioned having some gish in your gallops, and I did tell you not to be concerned about that - truely - don't feel rushed, take your time , but forget about that confused jumble on the side of the road, and read, or reread Thor & the Hero Doubters, and if you don't come up anything sensible straight away, or even after a while, that's still alright just don't be concerned, because, that means, by then you'll be able to see for yourself, that everything, is all alright with Thor & the Hero Doubters.

    18. I don't know what car you got into, but mine's just fine, thank you very much =)

      In fact, I traded it in for one of those waldo thingies. Now I'm walking roughshod all over the circus you left strewed around. Those clowns are pretty creepy, btw. And Thor says hello. He got a waldo for himself.

    19. Kateye70
      you traded your car for waldo? no wonder i haven't seen any posts from him lately. please let him go when the circus leaves town :)

    20. LoL, poor Waldo, maybe he got kidnapped into the circus and I stepped on him with my waldo.

      Actually, this is an apropos reference. Look up 'waldo (short story)' on wikipedia -it was a 'duo' publication of two shorts, "Waldo" and "Magic, Inc." by Robert Heinlein.

      From wiki: "The essence of the story is the journey of a mechanical genius from his self-imposed exile from the rest of humanity to a more normal life, conquering the disease myasthenia gravis as well as his own contempt for humans in general. The key to this is that magic is loose in the world, but in a logical and scientific way."

      It would actually be a good read, if you come across it. The term 'waldo' made it from the short story to real world application.

    21. Hey, that's great, I see 4 big round wheels, wide tyres to get that V12's grunt onto ground. mmmm ....
      Noticing a hell of a lot of rubber marks on the tarmac here, let me guess: mmmm you've been havin fun doin donuts- running rings around those aspiring competitors of yours. I don't think they're in the race myself.

      And Yer, those clowns are worse than creepy, they just seem so emotionally attached to red herrings - all that kissin n cuddlin n strokin n pattin - doesn't look anything like a casual relationship to me and I wouldn't be surprised if they're breed & raise them in their homes..

      And, no doubt about it - spot-on judgement on your part for not handing out waldos to the Doubters. They've no use for them at all as they've discovered, that, with taking on ".full of doubt." and practicing a ruthless honesty, comes liberty, they can fly. and soar so high - oh, what a beautiful view.

    22. What are you talking about?

    23. He apparently hallucinated that I was in a car wreck...creepy clowns, waldoes and Thor figured prominently...

    24. That should tell you something about him.

      P.S. You never provided me your opinion on George Eliot and Edith Wharton.

    25. Well, a literary discussion is definitely off topic, but yes, I have read them both and enjoy them both.

      I do find Edith Wharton's view a bit sad in outlook, but it deals with the aftermath of relationoships vs. Austen's work which only focuses on the start of them. It's too bad Austen died so young; I think her work was developing tremendously, and her insight into human nature very keen--it is her roman-a-clef style that makes her work so infinitely readable to me; her supporting characters stand complete.

      I've read mny more biographical works on Austen than Wharton or Sands; I could go on for many paragraphs but this topic is waaay too long for this format. Also I'm at work and busy today, so may not get a chance to get back on for a while.

    26. Which view are you referring to? Having read all of her novels and short stories, I don't believe that Edith Wharton had a view, an artistic sense, yes.

      P.S. As this is a documentary about critical thinking, I don't believe your post is off topic.

    27. Her world view. I do not re-read Wharton as often as I re-read Austen. I also re-read the Tolkein trilogy on a regular basis (about once every 6 or 7 years).

    28. When you have time (and I understand your job must be tedious), would you mind encapsulating what you believe to be her world view?

    29. Looks like some fun here. Is this doc banned in the US? It comes up but with no play button. Any suggestions?

    30. It seems fine in Canada were I am, clear your cache and cookies, reboot and try again, don't know what else to tell you.

    31. Seems like a mix up somewhere.
      What got posted to me, in your name, as if a reply from you about an earlier post of mine, I now see is also posted as a reply to Kateye - where it makes sense.

      Before that, there was a second post in your name as a reply to an earlier one of mine, it said: "Gish Gallop".

      Another subject: thanks for the link to big bang. It confirmed it was an expansion rather than explosion (which I wasn't challenging) but didn't explain how the two were different with the BB.

    32. As long as you didn't miss the part where he said snake oil.

    33. In answer to your second question, no. It's simply a device to get me from place to place and I have a better chance of reaching my destination if I drive carefully. In answer to your last question, no.

      You're clutching at straws.

    34. to be fair the car is still corporeal i think. you are expanding your awareness to another corporeal entity.

      granted i have not read ANYTHING else of the conversation and just wanted to add my two philosophical cents.

      once again, this is a great conversation that we could all be having in real time on skype. you guys are funny.

    35. Kateye70 or anybody else interested
      to try to describe what you are getting at and a brief explanation as to why this occurs watch "is seeing believing ". the video link here has been shortened by youtube but there is an approx 3 min excerpt in place of the full video that addresses what i think you mean .check it out and let me know if it explains what you mean? also i recommend the full video if you can find it

    36. Here's something along that line. Why is it when we are asleep we seem to "know" where the edge of the bed is? We toss and turn and roll and yet stay on the bed. What is it in our brain that seems to have an awareness even when we are asleep?

    37. And how many people have fallen off the edge of the bed? How many people buy a large bed to prevent this from happening? Critical thinking at its finest.

    38. This is another thing I want to think out before I look it up. I'm leaning towards that it has something to do with our ingrained fear of falling. I'm thinking this because if I sleep on a pallet on the floor I'll often as not wake up off the pallet.

      Don't think bed size has much to do with it. I'll stay on a twin bed as well as I stay on a king bed.

    39. Maybe it has something to do with our earlier tree-dwelling primate ancestors sleeping in trees?

    40. That's what I'm thinking. That ingrained fear of falling.

    41. I don't know. I've never slept on a pallet. But speaking of falling, I am reminded of what Bob Monkhouse said (and this is not quote-mining for I have nothing to prove), "It's not so much fear of flying as fear of not flying."

    42. habit...you should have seen my grand son when he was switched to a regular bed from his crib.
      1i

    43. And that's another thing to consider. Small children often do fall from the bed.

    44. The edge of the bed is softer than the middle, maybe you can feel yourself slipping off and roll back to the centre. Mini people are lighter, the edge doesn't give the same way, no slipping feeling until it's too late :)

  40. Very important documentary. Unfortunately, for those emotional patrons of over active imaginations this will go largely contested.

    I do have a few questions, does having no observable data on an anomalous article warrant proof of non-existence? Also, isn't it the objective of critical thinking to ask questions and find facts related to observable evidence even those reported as anomalous? If so, then why are the careers of scientists put in jeopardy when they choose to investigate these anomalies and why then after finding observable evidence that conflicts with mainstream accepted theories are their reputations tarnished and theories discounted?

    It seems to me that politics plays far too much of a role in science and progress is only further r*tarded by the egotistical self righteousness of those that care more for position and power than progress. I believe that this should have been mentioned in this documentary.

    1. Chris Collins
      to avoid giving a blanket statement in response could you provide specific examples of this?

  41. The language doesn't seem anfractuous to me, in fact quite straight forward, albeit with a slight cumbersomeness to the logic brought about by the nebulousness of original notion that "unknowable" actually is a valid concept. (from my point of view)
    Overall, mine is an attempt to clarify here - not argue - so at this point I also need to double check that we're both talking about BELIEF in supreme being - not whether that supreme being actually exists (prompted by your mention of you needing hard evidence)
    A further, but much more general clarification I seek is, does sound logic qualify as "hard evidence".

    1. And just what "sound logic" are you talking about?

    2. All of it
      That's not to say all logic is sound of course and I think your reply to Kateye is an example.
      By you answering as if "non-corporeal awareness" is "supernatural" are you not presenting a fallacy of presumption ?. I suggest a clear vested interest is evident here because if "non-corporeal awareness" is accepted as the same as "supernatural" then it facilitates the automatic dismissal of Kateye's proposition - as science deals with the natural, and nothing other, according to what you've said.
      How many people, once upon a time, were sure that Thor (the equivalent of your fairies and pixies) was responsible for storms. Explicit doubters, if there were any, would have been slapped down, by the guardians of the "truth". Would any have been declared insane, tagged as trouble makers ?
      Of the doubters, what about those who had no alternative explanation - those for whom the whole Thor thing just didn't make sense at all. Were they correct in having doubts ?
      Surely doubters existed - explicit or otherwise - for if there were no doubters there would have been no need for any questions at all, let alone any challenging questions being asked, and without them how could we have advanced to where we are - be sure that it wasn't Thor in control, and not have to die to find out what we know of what controls storms now, or even die & possibly cease to know anything at all.
      I say treasure the doubters for they are indispensable for the advancement of good science. Many may be genuine imbeciles, others genuinely deluded, some seen with certainty to be nonsense-peddling trouble makers talking out of turn. Give those that seek it, the opportunity of a hearing, this doesn't mean listening to those fools & deluded ones indefinitely, but to listen and consider their words at least once, because as nauseating as it may sometimes be, I believe it's part of the cost of the (often) huge price we have to pay for good science.
      AND
      I notice you're still using that "unknowable answer" twaddle which, with a little more time & discussion I believe will be seen for what it is (if I'm permitted a little light-hearted fun) - "the mark of a fraud & trickster" as I believe with the light of good reason it will be seen to be not at all, for every question has an answer - given we have time.

    3. You're right IF it is accepted the same as the supernatural, it must be dismissed as science. I see nothing wrong in that just as in stating that science deals only with the knowable, not the unknowable--and you have yet to state why you regard it as twaddle and why you regard it as the mark of a fraud and trickster.

      If you want to waste your time on delusional kooks wallowing in things whose existence they are at a pitiful loss to demonstrate, that's your business, but we've come a long way since Thor and I'm not about to bother. It's nonsense pure and simple. When it comes to science, all the matters is the natural.

    4. Gish gallop!

    5. You're batting 1000 today, both as poster and moderator.

    6. One does not bat a 1000, one bats 1.000. It's a thing for baseball fanatics.

    7. Shows you what I know about baseball.

    8. Don't feel rushed, take your time, but if you can't come up with anything sensible, I'll understand

  42. "cheap oracle","disgusting protege"," Is this another of your uneducated guesses? "etc...spoken like a true gentleman it must be satisfactory belittling
    people due to alternate creed,education or/& belief in discussion that have chosen a different path of viewing existence.being right reserves no right of vile conduct & using dismissive rhetoric which is far more disgusting than having 'faith'.it seems that certain people don't have to follow the comment policy as others.

  43. oQ said: "May be corporeality is only a small part of what awareness is. That's why i think it should be researched."

    And immediately got pounced on. However, I see the problem. oQ is positing something that cannot be readily researched. We simply don't have the means at hand, any more than Icarus had the means to build a flying machine.

    Which only shows that mankind has been dreaming of flight for so long the very concept became mythologized. And yet...we've sent men to the moon and unmanned flights to Mars and beyond. How unlikely such a thing would have seemed even a couple of centuries ago, and yet nowadays taking a plane ride is as boring as sitting on a bus.

    If a hypothesis about non-corporeal awareness could be formulated and subjected to scientific methodology, It might convince the 'scientees' (like my new word? =D ).

    Conversely, maybe it truly is something that can only discovered (or not) after we lose our corporeal beings. The knowledge of that awareness may be too big for our small bodies; Or, there may simply be no awareness at all.

    In which case, the scientees will be right, but we'll all be dead and won't know it, lol

    My analogy about flight is only to show that the question was asked for millenia before anyone had anything remotely close to the ability to answer it.

    Since, at this point in time, oQ's question is unanswerable, does that automatically make it invalid? ( /hands over ears to drown out all the "YES"s that will inevitably follow).

    1. All the scientific accomplishments you mentioned came about through HARD EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURAL WORLD, not through beliefs in some form of voodoo. If "non-corporeal awaness" means the supernatural, there's no way it can be subjected to scientific methodology.

      Conversely, fairies and pixies may rule the universe, but this is something that we'll never know until we rid ourselves of our corporeal beings to become their playmates.

      I can come up with all sorts of unanswerable questions and conjectures, but while this might say something about my creativity, it says nothing about their validity.

    2. I knew I could count on you!

      As I understood oQ's statement, she was specifically stating it was 'non-corporeal' as opposed to 'corporeal.' She also said, "i do have the impression that we are much more than just physical being."

      Neither statement warrants jumping to the conclusion that she therefore meant supernatural (i.e., outside of nature). In fact, I took her to mean 'within nature,' but not yet known.

      In re flight: The hard evidence and knowledge of the natural world came about millenia after the question was first asked.

      Here's another example: We don't have the ability to see colors into the infrared and ultraviolet spectrum; before the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum, no one even speculated about their existence. And yet, there they were, just waiting to be found, along with radio waves and microwaves.

      oQ, as I understand it, is positing that we may actually be able to find an answer while still in our corporeal existence, and learn or find a way to access the non-corporeal component of our awareness, if we just keep looking.

      Skepticism is certainly the order of the day until the evidence is provable, verifiable and falsifiable.

      (Disclaimer: for anyone thinking this is a 'religious' statement or discussion on my part, rest assured it is not. Also, I'm not speaking for oQ, only clarifying how I understood her.)

    3. The sentence in question begins with the word "if." If she meant what you think she meant, she should have stated it point blank. She has not clarified one way or the other. Once again, just what is this "non-corporeal" component?

    4. It's a No from me, and a thrill to think I might get to analyse a, or some, purportedly well reasoned YES answers.

    5. @Kateye70,

      Well I can too formulate a similar conjecture, and so everyone else with enough imagination:

      Do banshees and elves exist? We don't know for sure. Since, at this point of time, that question is unanswerable, does that automatically make it invalid?

      Using this logic, it seems that at this point of time nothing is invalid. Everything is possible. From a philosophical point of view that might be true, but realistically we can only validate things that are within our scientific scope.

      Of course we can talk about the scientific future, but that will only be speculation, nothing more. The thing becomes worse when people want to include their spirituality and God in the equation.

    6. The question, as I understand from oQ, is not about 'banshees' or 'pixies' or unwarranted conjectures.

      The question is about non-corporeal awareness being accessed while in our corporeal form. (I could be wrong in how she meant this, bear in mind).

      But. Here's where dismissing it out of hand, or as purely imaginary, goes astray. Why do humans keep asking the question?

      Now, it may be eventually proven that there's a region in our brain that produces a chemical which makes us hallucinate the need for the answer. That's pure speculation right there. Or there may be an as-yet-undiscovered natural mechanism that actually allows us to access the non-corporeal awareness. More speculation.

      I just think that as with flight, the desire may eventually provide the way to the means; or, just as microwaves gave us a faster baked potato, new discoveries may give us the answer.

      Personally, I'm neither for nor against, just intrigued. And the question does keep getting asked.

    7. Why would a region in our brain make us hallucinate? What would be the advantage of hallucinating over keeping a steady course, so to say?

    8. No advantage at all, of course. That was a speculation, not an actual hypothesis.

    9. I wasn't questioning what you said, perhaps it is an hallucination, but why? What advantage?

    10. That was just an illustrative point, and didn't have any grand meaning beyond that.

    11. It's not an advantage that gices hallucination. Some neuroscientists are hypothesising (and so far demonstrating) that religion and religious experiences are the byproducts of "built in" social abilities. It seems that in order to function as a social species, our brains have developed certain functions:

      The imposition of the idea that other things can have minds and thoughts (alien mind) which allows us to recognise how over people may think and is probably one of the stronger mechanisms in anthropomorphis.

      Empathy, which allows us to imagine, recall and recreate the the emotions/pain of others, crucial in a social species as it makes us want to care for people and allos us to understand their actions.

      Identifying authority figures: invaluable as a child. You trust what other people tell you, especially when they;re older, because it's a short cut to learning. Prevents us having to experiment with everything for ourselves.

      Unknown Agents I think it's called. Basically our brain interprets things like shadow, fast movements spotted out of the corner of our eyes etc It shows us what we're hoping to see or things it's expecting to see that may be a danger. When the brain fills in the blanks.

      These processes are the most likely explanation for the fact that 50% of children will have imaginary friends.
      We try find patterns and explanations for things, we don't have an answer but we can imagine some other thinking thing being the cause (unknown agent, alien mind). It clealy knows more than us (alien mind, authority figure).
      How would this creator feel? (alien mind, empathy) We should shhow it respect or it might get angry (empathy, authority figure, alien mind).

      As for people seeing things, when you expect to see something or want to see something, under the right circumstances, ( a movement out the corner of your eye, a shadow, a pattern in the stars or clouds, a face in a peice of toast) your brain will probably find a way to make it happen. All those pieces of toast on the internet which people claimed were jesus. I thought they looked more like elvis or in one case an elf. I thought the Mary toast was Marilyn Monroe. Our brains find patterns. We already know for a fact that the brain seeks out patterns and faces, imposing them where there are none.

      When the studies are complete, if they show that this is true, that religion is basically a "crossed wire" between these processes, it could be very interesting.

    12. Nicely put.

    13. Speculation I like.

    14. Evolution doesn't require that a particular mutation be beneficial to survival to remain active; merely that it not be a detriment to reproduction. We could all be raving maniacs but as long as we can survive long enough to reproduce effectively, that's all that's required. In fact, raving mania could be a positive survival trait--think 'honey badger' lol. (If you don't get it, look up 'honey badger dont care' on youtube).

    15. But does not evolution tend to do away with those things that are contrary to gaining an advantage? That is, not having an hallucination should be more advantageous than having one. Yet if what you say is true, by deduction, it is an a advantage. Just a question.

    16. Sometimes it doesn't succeed. Look at the koala bear with it's specialized diet (and I know it's not a bear). Are you familiar with Manukura the white kiwi?

    17. Yet why did it succeed in homo sapiens? Or maybe a better question is why homo sapiens succeeded in spite of this?

    18. You yourself have admitted that evolution can't be predicted and the idea that certain forms of life succeed when least expected gives the lie to a well-tuned, well-ordered universe.

    19. I don't believe in a well-tuned universe but I do believe in a well-ordered universe. These are questions that niggle at my acceptance of a well-ordered universe.

    20. I'm not sure what you mean by a well-ordered universe. However, if it were, everything would be predictable. We'd be able to determine when the next comet will collide with our planet--yet, we can't--and it isn't for lack of information.

    21. I suppose what I mean by a well-ordered universe is that if you take a long view at the universe it seems to make sense. However if you should take a short view nothing makes sense.

    22. And just how do you tell a long view from a short view?

    23. Well you and I as humans can do no other than take the short view. All of us live only the biblical 70 years (give or take). We can certainly look at the past and say "Yes certainly". But we can only imagine the future in our understanding of today. Does that make sense?

    24. What is the Biblical 70 years? Despite the exaggerated claims of the bible, people did not live as long then as they do now when reaching 70 is hardly unusual. See article on average life expectancy in Wikipedia. If you're saying that we look at things in terms of the times we live in, I agree.

    25. not always will evolution weed out the disadvantages. as long as that disadvantage isnt THAT bad. it needs selective pressure against it. also somethings that do bad stuff now were useful at first and have found a way to continue....look at memes.

    26. I think a better example is vestigial organs such as the human appendix.

    27. Okay I accept what you say mainly because it's true. Then you may be saying that homo sapiens' stubborn belief in a deity comes because it isn't that bad? Hell it may very well be true. I'm just wondering.

    28. It doesn't take much to intrigue you. Just a few scattered kooks.

    29. And questions beyond the purely physical aspects of living. I *am* a curious Kat.

    30. If they exist, one opinion is just as good as another.

    31. A question is not an opinion.
      If you think this is debatable I'm all out of motivation to take you to task, I mean really ! this is but one step away from hurling insults & derisions that be nothing more than measure of the impoverishment of how you choose to be.

    32. Which question did I ask? I see none in the post to which this is ostensibly a response. So if you want to hurl insults and derisions, do your worst. So far your posts are nothing more than gallimaufry or as Epicurus put it, "Gish Gallop."

    33. First things first.
      My post was a reply to your reply to Kateye saying "And questions beyond the purely physical aspects of living. I *am* a curious Kat."

    34. I have no idea what you're referring to.

    35. sadly, that's not all .....

    36. that was Achems actually.

    37. Can you ever forgive me?

    38. What is the definition for non-corporeal, without a body? a spirit? the akashic records? a collective consciousness divorced from physical reality? what form of locomotion does a non-corporeal use.

      Sorry, smells of snake oil to me.

    39. I see we're on the same wave, in this sea of consciousness.
      How would it be if you amended your 4th paragraph & removed
      " .chemical which makes us hallucinate the .." ?. As far as I can see it wouldn't effect the thrust of what you're saying at all.

    40. Do you mean that it would have no effect on the thrust or that it wouldn't bring it about?

    41. My compliments to you - when it comes to wit I think you have no peer, here, but aren't we here to apply critical thinking ?

    42. No need to amend anything, I was just throwing out hypotheticals.

  44. I agree with the scientific method and every subject that the author speaks about. Yet he says it with such arrogance that he gives scientists a bad images. Like a jerk.

  45. The continents on which we live do not move location. It is the continental plates which move during the life cycle of the planet. More than half of our continents reside on multiple continental plates.

    I know it may be slightly anal. I understand the point of the video, and appreciate the author stating that the questions could have been worded better.

    1. This is one of the few times that a now widely accepted scientific theory (techtonic plates) was at first derided as bunk.

  46. A few of the questions in the survey were not worded very well, for example 'The universe began with a huge explosion.'

    The universe did not begin with a huge explosion, but with a huge expansion/inflation of space time.

    As the universe cooled substantially from the initial state of uniform density and temperature, matter began to form which eventually, under the effect of gravity, began to gravitate together to form stars and galaxies.

    1. I think your comment is interesting.
      Could you tell me what the difference is between an explosion and an expansion ? (given that the expansion we're talking about, I believed, to have been extremely rapid - like that of an explosion)

    2. I don't remember if it was one of the vids in this doc or another that explored the way rewording survey questions can skew the results. Survey results can be very misleading, as pollsters know to their chagrin, and politicians to their delight.

    3. Again, I recommend Darryl Huff's book, "How to Lie with Statistics."

    4. As someone who used statistics to place advertising, I am soooo aware of how numbers can lie. And surveys.

    5. And that's why when it comes to whether the general trend is towards or against religion, I really don't know. I've read surveys going both ways.

    6. Yes, and it's so easy to innocently skew the question, there's a considerable amount of study on how to avoid doing so

    7. That's what I mean by better science education.

  47. On another note. I love people. Even sky fairy people. That is good karma. Thank you. No applause necessary.

  48. Vlatko, I've stumbled across an article from the Guardian which I believe makes the both of us sound a little foolish and wide of the mark.

    Problem is I don't know how to put a link up, largely because I never do.

    If you're interested I can tell you where to find it. Otherwise it would be fruitless for me to continue this discussion (and that includes anyone pro or con)

    1. @lakhotason,

      The discussion is fruitless long time ago. Do as you wish.

    2. Agreed.

  49. Production values R nil... if you begin your film with an illegible survey page, U need to go back to the drawing board.

  50. Also, there is heavy construction on my street and my internet connection is spotty. If I don't respond that's probably the reason.

  51. Just read an interesting article from Sweden. 15% of Swedish churchgoers say they are atheist and 25% say they are agnostic. I don't think you can now say this is a "one country" thing and it is surely not a "religiously infected"area.

    You may, if you wish, google "swedish churches and atheism" to find the article.

    1. @lakhotason,

      Did you read the whole article. The majority of those 15% who said they're atheists are KIDS, who go in church with their parents, and that is a byproduct of the secularization in Sweden. The younger the members, the more likely they are to be atheists or agnostics.

      So it is not the same case as with US, where scientists deliberately go to church. It is completely different, yet you want to portray it as the same phenomenon.

    2. Now Vlatko, that is dishonest because the article (at least the one I'm reading) does not say the majority of the 15% are kids. It says the younger the member the more likely the member is atheist. Nowhere does my article say kids nor does it give the ages of those who claim to be atheist or agnostic.

      Maybe I shouldn't be so trusting of you.

      Note: I'm reading The Local, Sweden's News in English dtd 15 Jun 11.

    3. @lakhotason,

      Don't divert.

      First do you agree that the USA research is only applicable for USA, given my evidence I presented to you?

      Second, it is true that the Swedish article nowhere says kids, and does not states ages. However it is sure that the majority of those 15% are younger members. You're nitpicking, because the real point is that the Swedish phenomenon is completely different from the US one, and you rushed to present it as the same. In Sweden younger members in church are becoming atheists because of the secularization, and on the other hand the scientists in US are deliberately going to the church. Two completely different things.

      As for the trust, I don't want it. What I wish is you doing your homework.

    4. I'm not nitpicking. You said the article says kids and it does not. How is that nitpicking? And the younger the member does not imply kids. It only means what it says. The younger the member the more likely to be atheist which could (and I'm not saying it absolutely does) mean a 50 y/o is more likely to be atheist than a 60 y/o.

    5. @lakhotason,

      Jesus... did you read the whole comment. Read it and get back.

    6. and Vlatko

      Some surveys say that more people are turning towards religion and some say more people are turning away from it. I make no assertion one way or the other. However, if the former is true, people are becoming more dumbed down and if the latter, more educated.

    7. Do my homework? Remember it was me that found the article. Again, you are the one who said it was a one country thing. I and you both know exactly what we are talking about here.

    8. Hahaha... Yes we do know, at least I know what I'm talking about. Let me remind you what you've said to @Robert when he asked you to back up your statistical data.

      Look RobertAllen, I am having a conversation with Dewflirt, not submitting a goda***d research paper for peer review. You can either ignore the conversation, do you own research or stfu.

      Should I have responded to you the same way when you asked me to back up my data about the one country thing and stigmatization?

      And you still deflect and divert. The facts stay the same:

      1. USA survey is only for the territory of USA.
      2. Atheist are stigmatized and most hated in USA.

    9. Please Vlatko I said it was tongue-in-cheek.

      Peace

  52. Why doesn't someone just google "church-going atheist scientists". There have been two studies on the matter recently.

  53. This poor soul who put this documentary hasn't really thought critically about some of the very things the documentary addresses...evolution goes against both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, simple. No way whatsoever around it...seeing the problems with the "theory" of evolution IS thinking critically...

    Not all people who reject so called basic scientific knowledge are religious zealots. In fact, ANYONE who has studied science properly would be foolish to not realize how often scientific fact has changed...what is today's science is bound to be tomorrow old wives tale...what was yesterday's science is laughable at this point...blood letting, salem witch trials, homosexuality (classified as a disorder in the original DSM)...so if you're going to put your hopes and dreams in science, make sure you study history as well, and do your due diligence and "cricital thinking" and don't buy anything at face value - either religious or scientific. Don't be lazy and actually LOOK FOR YOURSELF to see what is and isn't true.

    Funny...some people are so quick to point the finger without first looking in the mirror...

    1. Anonymous
      this could prove entertaining so i will bite why do you say "evolution goes against both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics"

    2. "evolution goes against both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics,"

      can you explain to me the first and second laws and then explain HOW they go against evolution?

    3. Obviously you know nothing about the first and second law of thermodynamics other than what you've probably read on a creationist website and yet you have the temerity to state that evolution is wrong. For your information, these laws apply only to closed systems and the earth is an open one. So you don't know what you're talking about.

      Your endeavor to transmogrify one of the beauties of science, the change in perception with the influx of new information, into a major drawback is just as ignorant and ill-founded as your statements about evolution and physics. One way or the other, science beats religion hands down.

      You should be the one looking in the mirror or better yet, in a standard biology and physics text.

      Another ignorant post.

    4. What do you know about the 4 laws of thermodynamics, and why does evolution go against the first two laws, will start you off with wiki, if you need help.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/laws_of_thermodynamics

    5. I'm afraid it is you who has not thought out the relationship between evolution and the laws of thermodynamics. You demonstrate a superficial knowledge on the topic and you are using it to argue a much larger topic. Life is not a closed system. It is part of a larger system and it draws it energy from outside sources to maintain itself and in fact grow.

      Take a shallow black plastic container and place it in the sun. Fill it with water. At first the water will be cool and around the same temperature as the air around it. As the black plastic absorbs the heat from the sun the water temperature will begin to rise. Does this increased energy negate the laws of thermodynamics? According to you it does...but of course it doesn't. It has added the extra energy from the sun because it is not a closed system. Like that container of water, life receives energy from outside sources. We ingest nutrients which our bodies use in a chemical reaction to obtain the energy we need to grow and even to propagate. Those nutrients usually get their energy from the sun. Life is a part of a much larger system which transfers energy from one place to another. This is a simple and crude explanation but it is still a more sophisticated understanding of thermodynamics than what you possess. You can't explain away evolution with the laws thermodynamics. There is no violation.

      The rest of your post I can't even comment on. Anyone who would equate the superstitions of the witch trials with science obviously doesn't have even the simplest understanding of the subject.

    6. Well put, especially your explanation of the laws of thermodynamics.

    7. @Anonymous
      Some of the examples you supplied for "yesterday's science" wasn't science at all. Witches and homosexuals were prosecuted because of religious morals. Whatever was thought about these people had nothing to do with science by modern definitions.

      Most of the basic scientific facts are backed up by more evidence in time. Most known errors are found in details and scientists are often the first to admit it (the Pope on the contrary is "infallible"). Can you provide examples of important scientific facts that recently have been proved wrong?

    8. You certainly have a point or two, but what are "important scientific facts" and what do you mean by "recently?"

    9. Anonymous claims that today's science may very well become "tomorrow old wives tale", and with that statement seems to be claiming that even things like quantum physics and evolution might turn out to be entirely wrong. I wonder what his assumptions are and what they are based upon.
      "Recently": since the beginning of this century, for example?

    10. The century's still young. However, I doubt if quantum physics and evolution will be proved entire wrong, certainly refined, but that's about it.

  54. Does anyone now see what I meant by ridicule and digression. I made a statement and immediately the ridicule commenced. And then digressed to the point of not even paying any attention to what I wrote. That is what I predicted would happen if you read again. Always hiding behind paperwork and digression. Nothing original.

  55. If i have seen further it is only because i stand on the shoulders of giants

  56. Now that I've let this run with little or no comment go back and read the fourth paragraph of my reply to Vlatko. Where did I say this was happening?
    Where do I say the clerks are? Where did I say was imagination less important than papershuffling?

    1. .hey lak
      not to take the discussion in another direction but. other than common law (your first post on this doc). do you have any objections of the things that are portrayed as pseudo science or lore in this doc or do you agree with these things being classified this way?

    2. No. Just the common law statement threw me. I've thought and thought about it and I cannot see common law as lore.

  57. One example of what lakhotason may be talking about is the Mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot. He did something others said was not possible, and invented fractal geometry.

    Edit- not the coward part, but the inventing new math's part....

    1. Voila

    2. While Mandelbrot is certainly one of the major mathematicians of our time, his work on fractals was based on research PREVIOUSLY conducted by Gaston Julia and Pierre Fatou and was really not made of whole cloth. In addition, at no time in his career was he ridiculed for his research, but rather held in highest esteem by his peers, the people who count. Another sterling counterexample to Iakhotason.

    3. Why it's not part of the 'coward' argument. And, like you say, is also built on some work done by others earlier. But... without some curiosity and imagination, we'd still be looking to some 'deity' to explain natural events, instead of searching for other possibilities. Without some 'outside the accepted box thinking', which may or may not be what lak is talking about?, we'd be still in the stone age with rain gods ect... ??
      Sometimes, it may take courage, eg. Galileo to say that your results go against the accepted theory.
      Comes back to the beauty of science though, it's self correcting with the required evidence.

    4. I regard Galileo, Copernicus, Dawin and Newton, etc. as very much in the box (a phrase I hate due to its use to justify all sorts of crazy and idiotic notions). Their curiosity led to their observations and their observations led to their codifications. There was rarely any heroism involved. As I stated earlier, most of their breakthroughs were accepted by their peers almost immediately. So contrary to Iakhotason's assertion, a scientist need not be intrepid to blaze new trails.

    5. I see what you're saying. I would also think it's a thrill to announce to the world something you've discovered that adds to our understanding... not so much brave as fun/ego (career) building. :)
      Edit- their peers had to accept the evidence and logic, can't argue against something you observe to be true.

    6. I can't argue against that, but it's a different subject.

      Your edit backs up what I've been saying. Rarely does a scientist come up with something new, be ridiculed or at any rate excoriated by his peers and then is later shown to be correct.

    7. As a side point, the 'in the box thinking' may be partly a result of hindsight maybe? I'd expect it wasn't so easily accepted by the 'peers' of the time, but the logic was indisputable when examined.

    8. One way or the other, it's still definitely "in the box" and one way or the other, most scientific breakthroughs were accepted by the scientific community within a relatively short time, even after some initial doubt.

    9. @docoman,

      Yes, but the fractal geometry is not completely unrelated scientific language. It overlaps with the previous understanding.

      Read about Julia's paper on iteration of a rational function. He was working on polynomials and rational functions.

      Read about how Mandelbrot was inspired from that paper and what he did.

      Mandelbrot didn't invent fractals out of the blue. He had a deep understanding of Julia's work and he expanded on that.

  58. No Vlatko, that is not dishonest nor is it completely untrue.

    And what about the rest of the statement? Therein lies the discussion.

    1. I gave you my opinion why I think that way.

    2. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. As a matter of fact, we need more opinion. That's my point.

    3. That was not what this discussion was about. You've shifted focus.

    4. Another bald statement. How about backing it up, perhaps with some scientific history?

    5. @lakhotason,

      What statement? About the clerks... they're not scientists. Honestly I don't know what are you saying. I can only guess.

      Are we the clerks who ridicule pseudoscientists, for whom you think are the real scientists, because they went against the mainstream.

  59. In my experience it's not only the 'average' person who doesn't understand science fully. (no doubt myself included) as the introduction says..
    I've had a GP tell me he can cure me in 6 weeks with diet and exercise... which I know from experience is total bs, been there, tried that more then once... and that was a Doctor, a trained 'scientist'. (you have no idea how much I wish he was correct) But, I've also had a surgeon save my life... some 'scientists' are not agnostic, which to me seems somewhat of a contradiction...
    I think you have to go with what you feel is trustworthy, and to me, I'll trust my surgeon before some 'herbal quack', mixed with my own intuition of what my body is telling me...any day of the week.. as I said, I'd not be here without that attitude, which is true.

    1. But you're approaching it rationally.

  60. While Edison was busy inventing his infamous and most-ridiculed device to attempt communication with the dead utilising tubes, gases and electricity - he accidentally invented the cathode ray tube, and hence - television!

    1. So what are you saying?

  61. I have specifically watched this doc because it had generated so many comments, thinking that it might be a lightning rod for a true discourse on thinking critically. Although I found the doc to be a bit dry, and somewhat politically motivated in that it would encourage activism by the viewer by suggesting that we post their views publicly if we cared enough about empirical science, I instead found that the comments were more closely based on personal bias, which this doc warned against,and I am sorry to report that it has evolved into a clash of personalities. I would not want to deprive people of expressing their opinions, I only wish that it actually had something to do with the topic at hand.

  62. Here, argue with this, not me.

    The gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge. - Albert Einstein

    Doesn't sound like a load of bs to me.

    1. This flagrant instance of quote mining and quoting from authority demonstrates your lack of attention to the basics of the documentary.

    2. @lakhotason,

      Quote mining indeed. The same way religious people are trying to prove that he was religious.

      He is talking about fantasizing in the domain of science. Example: What will happen if I ride on a ray of light? Hypothetical question which starts a serious journey into mathematics and physics.

    3. I know what Einstein is talking about as well as you. However I also understand that he means much more than what you are saying.

      I didn't put it up to be quote mining. I used to show what would happen when I put it up. I'll be willing to bet than none of you read the entire context from which the quote was taken. So how can you tell me what Einstein meant?

      It is strange that those who propose to be creatures of science are the least scientific. They confuse information with knowledge. Science isn't about formulas, theories, proofs, etc. That is merely the paperwork of science. Science is imagination, fantasy.

      And that is what is lacking here. The inability to imagine. I spent several hours going through comments of certain commentators and I could not find one original thought. Not one comment with imagination. All to be seen is just the shuffling of the paperwork. That's not science, that's clerking.

      The man that ridicules in the name of science is no different than the Inquisitor. Both are cowards. Paperwork and digression are used to hide their cowardice. A coward cannot be a scientist.

    4. I think I know what you mean... without some imagination it would be hard to come up with a Hypothesis to test...???

    5. Without imagination it would be impossible.

    6. You are guilty of quote mining pure and simple and this lengthy and largely irrelevant cop-out ("I didn't put it up to quote mining.") with smoke screen ("They confuse information with knowledge.") and red herring ("Not one comment with imagination.") not only intensifies your culpability, but colors everything you post.

      "A coward cannot be a scientist." Well, that certainly leaves you out. Therefore, what business do you have commenting on a subject you know nothing about?

    7. Don't know what you mean "The man that ridicules in the name of science is no different than the inquisitor. Both are cowards. Paperwork and digression are used to hide their cowardice. A coward cannot be a scientist."?

      I presume that is not relating to any of us at TDF?

    8. A scientist has to go against current knowledge and must be willing to endure the ridicule. Takes guts. A clerk sits sharpening his pencil
      waiting to ridicule. A coward. A scientist is willing to take chances even if he is later proved to be wrong. A clerk is always right but he takes no chances. A scientist , if wrong, at least learns. A clerk learns nothing, he is more concerned with ridiculing those who took the chances.

    9. Complete romantic nonsense. Most of the greatest scientists as well as their discoveries were mainstream, even Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Newton. Endeavoring to add to a body of knowledge does not equate to heroism or standing up to fear of ridicule.

    10. @lakhotason,

      "A scientist has to go against current knowledge..."

      That is completely untrue and dishonest.

      Most of the scientific work is piling up on the existing knowledge. Adding new discoveries, related to the previous ones. They can't come out of blue. You can't invent new mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. You can only work within them.

      Thanks to the previous understanding Einstein could deduce his theories. And his theories are not devoid from the previous understanding. They complement the previous knowledge and they describe it in greater detail.

    11. There are two people who came CLOSEST to going against current knowledge and inventing new mathematics ALMOST singlehandedly, Galois and Cantor and the interesting thing is that while their work seems to be in two different fields, these fields are intimately related. A close contender is Abel.

    12. You know of no scientist who went against current thought and suffered ridicule? Really?

    13. Did I say that? Let's examine my statement "Most of the greatest scientists as well as their discoveries were mainstream, even Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Newton. Endeavoring to add to a body of knowledge does not equate to heroism or standing up to fear of ridicule." Now, how you read into that that an assertion to the effect that I know of no scientist who went against current thought and suffered ridicule is beyond me. Another one of your distortions. Those who did go against current thought, suffered ridicule (I assume you mean from their peers) and were later proved right are in a small minority.

    14. Don't know what you mean about the clerks, clerks in what?
      Why would a clerk be waiting to ridicule?

      Scientists talking chances? you bet! but they are armed with subject matter that went through the scientific method (I hope) with their experiments laid out for peer review.

      Science is always striving to prove something wrong or to better the prognosis/facts, not to go against current knowledge. Science means change, upwards mobility.

    15. After reading Iakhotason's last few posts, I'm hearing bugles and tympani.

    16. No, I don't mean that. Go back and read my reply to Vlatko of one hour ago. It pretty well explains what I mean by the name clerk.

    17. If you don't try something new, you'll never be able to discover something new.....right or wrong you don't really know until you test it.

    18. I hope you're not using this to justify pseudosciences such as astrology, intelligent design, alchemy, etc.

      How many cases do you know of a scientist waking up one morning and saying, "Today, I'm going to try something new and different?" From my reading about the great scientists, I've discovered that novelty (read breakthrough) comes about gradually and naturally and not through brute force. Darwin and natural selection are a fine example of this.

      You might be interested in reading about how the microwave oven came about.

    19. No, not trying to justify pseudosciences at all, just seeing that imagination is a part of coming up with a hypothesis, (a new possible explanation for an observed phenomenon).
      Edit- a hypothesis is only an idea, may or may not be correct after testing.

    20. Inspiration seems more accurate, for it takes more into account everything that went before the magical breakthrough--or perhaps the English language lacks a word for this. Imagination just doesn't seem to cut it.

    21. True. Inspiration is a better fitting word. That's what I'm meaning, an educated guess kind of.

    22. Besides, how many great ideas can a scientist come up with in a lifetime, one or perhaps two. Not everyone's a Newton.

    23. Lol, I'd be happy with 1 :) Then again, I'd be happy with the title scientist lol.

    24. robertallen1
      have you ever looked into Henry Cavendish? while lets say eccentric he made a lot of discoveries but what is most surprising is the papers and discoveries he made but told nobody about. look him up on wiki and take notice of the last two paragraphs. he was brilliant but few know it

    25. I know about Cavendish, especially his efforts to determine the weight of the earth. He is to science what Franz Schubert was to music. By why do you mention him? Is it because his work was subject to peer review only after his death?

    26. i only mention it in response to " Not everyone's a Newton. " and i find it interesting that if he got credit for what he discovered he might be as well known. just an interesting tidbit nothing more

    27. Do you mean by the general public or by those at least somewhat conversant with science?

    28. robertallen1
      when i said "few know it" i meant both groups you mentioned. now i have nothing more then personal belief to back that up (so essentially nothing)

    29. And personal belief was all I asked for.

    30. Try inspagination :)

    31. That's a little unfair. The clerk does the nuts and bolts work, the drudgery, mindless in appearance, essential in that it gives substance to what the theoretical minds invent. It is what some of us are suited to do with our lives. They have the patience and the capacity to sift through all the data, record it and present it in a fashion that makes sense of the ramblings of the imaginative mind. I wouldn't want to be an accountant but have been grateful that someone is willing and able to do the job. Its not cowardice. Its a practical application of ones talents.

    32. @lakothason
      It doesn't have to be against the current knowledge and probably mostly is not, but more importantly: it could be against the current knowledge.
      If you meant to say it takes curiosity, imagination, critical (re-)thinking and guts (in that order), I agree with you.

    33. @lakhotason,

      As usual I'm not sure I understand what are you trying to say.

      Science isn't about formulas, theories, proofs, etc... science is imagination, fantasy... A coward cannot be a scientist...

      Now what to take out of this.

      The "paperwork" is 99% of the job. I don't know why are you undermining this.

      It turns out you only appreciate theoretical science. Are all the others cowards?

      Theoretical science can't exists without practical/empirical. What Einstein deduced through mathematics and logic couldn't be held as true without empirical confirmation. I think several teams waited for 8 years for a solar eclipse in order to measure and confirm general relativity for the first time (Gravitational redshift of light).

      The same with the Higgs boson. Higgs predicted the existence of the particle through mathematics, but it took hundreds of billions of dollars and a small army of scientists to empirically prove its existence.

      Don't tell me all those man are cowards.

      Sure it all begins with EUREKA, and almost all the credit goes to the person who shout it, but it does not end there.

    34. Its sounds to me like Einstein was speaking about or comparing two different subjects. Apples and oranges.

  63. I love science... but this documentary freaks me out. You can't call someone ignorant because he believes in reincarnation. This is his belief and it has nothing to do with his understanding of science. Science doesn't exclude the fact that we are emotional silly animals that like to be entertained with mystical and unusual ideas.

    1. Is it ignorant to believe in Santa Claus?

    2. As long as the person understands that it is nonsensical, that's fine, but when he begins to believe that it really happened, he is ignorant.

  64. Absolutely fantastic! Loved every segment. I am a science teacher and I going to have all my students view it. Thanks so much for giving of your time to produce this.

    1. Bruce
      i have no idea what country you are in but the religions sections of this doc might land you in hot water if you promote it to students. i would hate to see a school lose a science teacher

    2. As I posted to Vlatko, while the core ideas are fine, the problem is that the narrator at times departs from them.

    3. robertallen1
      the only answer i could give would be to repeat what Vlatko said. i enjoyed the video and accept any mistakes.

  65. I agree with most of what this fellow says except for his diatribe on GMO food. He's totally wrong on this one.

  66. It takes time, effort, and practise to think critically. According to the ads on TV, none of us has the time to take from our busy schedules to make this effort.
    That is why "others" have taken on the emormous task to process everything, then hand us easy, simple choices that we can use.
    We can rest our worried minds that there are others doing the hard critical thinking for us so we can all go back to a comfortable sleep.

  67. For those interested, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on Simon Singh (whose book on Fermat's Last Theorem is wonderful) as to the outcome of the lawsuit filed by the BCA.

    "In 2008, Singh was unsuccessfully sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for criticising their [sic] activities in a column in The Guardian. A 'furious backlash' to the lawsuit resulted in the filing of formal complaints of false advertising against more than 500 individual chiropractors within one 24-hour period, with one national chiropractic organisation ordering its members to take down their websites, and Nature Magazine noting that the case had gathered wide support for Singh, as well as promoting calls for the reform of English libel laws. On 1 April 2010, Simon Singh won his court appeal for the right to reply on the defence of fair comment. On 15 April 2010, the BCA officially withdrew the lawsuit ending the case."

    Draw your own conclusions.

  68. Tired said (below) "gone are the days when you could go to the comments to get some views on the doc. now it's just full of 'better than thous' bickering!"

    All I'm pointing out is that confrontation is not always the best form of communication. Lacing what might otherwise be useful information with demeaning insults doesn't exactly leave the other person willing to hear anything one has to say, regardless of its validity.

    If the point of documentaries is to present information, and the reason people watch them is to learn, then discouraging them from asking even poorly-phrased questions or poorly-worded thoughts and speculations is discouraging the very process this site upholds.

    I'm only suggesting we all take the time to re-read our posts before clicking the send button, and edit out the personal comments that inevitably creep in.

    1. Once again, it's not up to the reader to try to determine what a person is "really" thinking or asking or what his motivation is for thinking or asking it. If a person can't express yourself clearly (and I don't mean like a college professor), he shouldn't post until he can.

      As for demeaning insults, someone who posts patent nonsense (and I don't mean venial nonsense) and fallacious statements (and I don't mean venially fallacious statements) which he tries to pass of as fact deserves what he gets.

    2. The comments are still holding their own, nobody is really threatening, swearing and such, but my delete finger is at the ready. lol

    3. What about the veiled obscenities in Iakhotason's reply to my latest post to him. It's a shame to encounter someone with such a profound contempt for backing up his statistical claims.

    4. Well, not going to take sides. I will take that just as man to man talking, but anymore will be deleting.

    5. I was pointing out the tone of the conversation, not the content.

    6. I know exactly what you are pointing out. What do you like me to do, delete all? I did the best under the circumstances. Kept everything down to a dull roar.

  69. I'm guessing that if you need a general idea of a drug you might test it on a group of people as similar to each other as possible. But then surely you would then move on to other or mixed groups. The snippet I just read says that often the elderly or women of reproductive age are excluded which seems silly if they will eventually take the drug. On the other hand, how specific is too specific ? You could end up refine the test groups to groups of one :) If they really want random groups they should throw names in a hat :)

    1. The reproductive age exclusion is understandable I suppose. When you are testing a drug one of the unknowns is side effects. Don't want to damage a woman's reproductive system. Apparently not as much importance is given to a man's.

    2. Ha ha! Maybe there's a touch of male doctor ego involved? We women have fragile fertility, you men are super potent!! ;)

    3. Once again, I really enjoy your god the klutz.

    4. Well, if men are made in his image I have all men as evidence of it ;)

    5. What I would really like to hear are your comments about God the klutz (omniklutz) as they relate to prehistoric times.

    6. Well thank you. We like to think so.

    7. I remember reading somewhere, years ago, (no, can't produce a reference =P ) which said that women of reproductive age were left out of pharmaceutical trials because fluctuating hormones were too hard to track (read: cost too much money to test for since they required extra effort to track the possible effects)...although that didn't stop them from recommending such drugs to women based on data collected from men, and finding out later that women reacted differently than the test subjects because they were, well, women with fluctuating hormones.

    8. Bloody hormones! Mixed blessing ;)

    9. i changed my mind! lol
      1i

    10. The like is for the changed mind! ;)

    11. That certainly sounds reasonable. Women are not supposed to touch even the inside of the box that Rogaine comes in due to some type of hormonal/reproductive problem.

  70. Thankyou both :)

  71. gone are the days when you could go to the comments to get some views on the doc. now it's just full of 'better than thous' bickering!

    1. In my opinion this documentary is not about critical thinking. There are just too many unsubstantiated claims, leaps in logic, and references to unnamed sources for me to take it seriously as an exercise in critical thought.
      For example:

      1. around 3 min 50 seconds in it's claimed that those people who gave incorrect answers in the questionnaire see science and technology as "strange and frightening". There's no basis (evidence presented) for this conclusion at all - they could all be just oblivious to their ignorance.

      2. around 6 mins in, it's stated we now have 2 societies - those that value science & technology, & those that do not , & shortly after that implies that none of those that actually do value science & technology hold beliefs that might be classified as pseudoscience, & vice versa. This is too black & white.

      3. around 7 min in, it quotes an "unscientific" British newspaper survey. There are quite a few other references to "informal" surveys - these sources are not referenced & therefore impossible to check - unverifiable !

      For the record, I do have a vested interest here - that is that good science & genuine rationality be promoted because they are indispensable if our species is to survive. As such I don't think this documentary is helpful.

      And for the record, I'm not religious, have no vested interests in "alternative medicines", think the BCA's actions of false advertising are disgusting & that it's appalling that that journalist went to jail for exposing them.

    2. @Phil Pilgrim99,

      What is a good science... according to you? Chiropractic?

      You had a positive experience with it and now you think there is a world wide plot to suppress it. Typical conspirative reasoning.

      Can't you understand that there is not enough evidence for it, to be considered legit.

      It can't be replicated and demonstrated on a large diverse group. Simple enough. I don't understand why are you still arguing about.

      And for the documentary, don't you RECOGNIZE that it is an amateur doc. It is a random guy on YouTube who made it. Despite the few mistakes in it, the general message is OK.

    3. Open up a Los Angeles telephone directory and see how many chiropractors are listed. So much for worldwide conspiracy.

    4. Just got back from the summer fete, two chiropractors, a palm reader, a clairvoyant, a tarot lady and an alternative therapy tent selling potions. All had queues of waiting women but the men seemed to prefer the bone crunchers. If there hadn't been queues I'd not have thought much of it, silly fun at the fete.

    5. You bring to mind several interesting differences between male and female in this area. Although both sexes have the same rate of response to placebo, females have a higher nocebo response. And in the area of placebo's opposite, imaginary or hysterical illness, it is predominantly females.

    6. I wonder why that is? I also heard somewhere that women are more sensible about their health, more likely to try painkillers and advice from a chemist before visiting a doctor, whereas men will ignore their problems until they get really bad, or think a headache is a brain tumour and dash to A and E only to be given paracetamol ;)

    7. I've thought about why this nocebo response is gender biased towards females. My suspect would be conditioning. If I were a researcher I would first try to rule out conditioning as a cause.

      The reason I suspect conditioning is because until very recently new drugs were tested mostly on males. The reasoning was what's good for the gander is good for the goose (and good for the gosling). We know that's not true now but think of all the bad reactions women were having to "male" drugs. It should follow that when given placebo females have the same conditioned responses that they have to "male" drugs.

      What I'm really curious about is what if a test group were to "accidentally" learn they were to recieve placebo and were given the drug instead. I understand a placebo effect can occur even if it is known you are taking a placebo, but would the opposite also be true?
      Can knowing you are taking a "placebo" negate the efficacy of the drug.

    8. Women having bad reactions to male drugs, I need an example please? I could experiment on my kids, give one a placebo and not tell her, another a placebo and tell her it's real and the other the real thing and let slip its a placebo? I knew I'd had them for a reason! Do you think it's true that women have a higher pain threshold? May be that we are just martyrs ;)

    9. That's the problem with Iakhotason. He makes statistical assertions and takes umbrage when asked to back them up. To be perfectly clear, not all statements need back up. For example, if I say that most biologists the world over support evolution, I don't need to provide back up. By if I state that most Catholics prefer Ajax Cleanser while most Protestants prefer Comet, then I need to show on what this conclusion is based. These are two different types of assertions.

    10. Sorry Mr Allen, posted in the wrong place, very tired today! :)

    11. I don't have a specific drug name off the top of my head but I think if you google something to the effect "gender bias in drug testing" a whole lot of research pops up.

    12. Again, you expect her to confirm your statement, in other words do your homework for you.

    13. Where are you getting your information?

    14. It's generally available on the web. Somethings are hard to root out and on some I just cannot read the paper because it requires a fee. I have to rely on the abstract.

    15. Just stating that it's generally available on the web does not provide the source behind your assertion. An abstract is fine, provided you cite it. Another way is to begin with verbiage such as "According to . . . " Providing your source at the end of your statement is also fine. One way or the other, if you make a statistical statement, you must provide the source. See my last post to Dewflirt.

    16. Look RobertAllen, I am having a conversation with Dewflirt, not submitting a goda***d research paper for peer review. You can either ignore the conversation, do you own research or stfu. I won"t participate in you silly sh*t.

    17. If you can't back up your statistical assertions, you shouldn't post them in the first place. Your resort to obscenity says a lot about you. Every time you make a statistical assertion without some type of back up (i.e., citation of source), I'm going to call you on it. Remember, this is a public forum.

    18. Now that some calm has returned I'll give you my reply.

      You didn't ask me to back up my assertions, you asked me WHERE I got my information and I answered your question.

    19. Don't try to get out of it. Backing up your assertions is the same as stating where you got your information. For one, you made statements about the increasing number of innocent people in jail (a matter of statistics) and became angry when asked for corroborating evidence, thus abrogating your responsibility to provide the source of your statistical assertions. Simply telling the reader to look it up on the internet does not meet this obligation. However, not all assertions require a source. For example, if I state that differentiation involves finding the tangent of a curve while integration involves finding the area under one, I don't need to name a source, as it is not a statistical assertion. If I state that evolution is accepted by most biologists worldwide, I don't need to give a source. However, if I state that the removal of religion from public schools has resulted in an increase in teenage pregnancies, a statistical assertion, then I do. If I state that Darwin was an atheist , then I do. I hope you appreciate the difference.

    20. "Once again, it's not up to the reader to determine what a person is "really" thinking or asking....."

      - RobertAllen

      You asked a question and I answered it.

    21. Unresponsive which is hardly surprising.

    22. Thought it to be a pretty good response.

    23. I was thinking of you last night and reread your undeservedly controversial essay. You really have something there--God the klutz or omniklutz.

    24. Yes the general message is OK, and, there is so much "good science" I couldn't list it all here, but some examples: in health - treatment of polio, smallpox & such, surgery, psychology - a huge number of achievements, then modern transport & communications, the Hubble & Mars, plus across every area of society.

      At the same time I haven't forgotten about the (now decades old, & since withdrawn) scientific assurances we were given 70 years ago that ddt was completely safe & that X-rays were harmless, or that that the most brilliant & eminent of scientists in his era, Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society & the United Kingdom’s National Academy of Science, declared that heavier than air flying machines were an impossiblity, only to be proved wrong a few years later by a couple of bicycle makers.

      As for chiropractic, it's not even science according to the definition of science - but it worked for me & has for millions of others. I don't want to be an advertisement for the industry (as I said in a recent post - I consult my medical practitioner first) but accusations that I'm ignorant about of placebo, that my behavior is suspicious, my claims have "..the mark of a fraud & trickster", that my account is invalid because I haven't presented "solid scientific evidence", or for that matter that I'm susceptible to "conspirative" reasoning, are just amusing & a little frustrating. If you choose to believe I'm lying, or I must have a psychiatric or neurotic disorder, or that my experience can be explained as a spontaneous remission, or was placebo, then that's your choice.

      Are there many charlatans in that industry ? yes !, how many people suffer injury & pain due to these criminals who also steal their money ? thousands, maybe millions, & it's heartening to see that the BCA is being outed. Are there very many charlatans in mainstream medicine ? yes. How many lethally incompetent medical practitioners are there ? way too many (I nearly died due to one). Do I condemn & dismiss all medical practitioners ? No. Some chiropractors are charlatans, do I condemn all of them ? No ... for reasons which I now hope are obvious.

    25. You're right, the general message is fine, but unfortunately in a number of instances, the narrator doesn't practice what he preaches.

      In one instance, he demonstrates the weakness of quote mining and quoting from authority and yet at the end of the section on evolution, quotes from Dr. Ayala (and I don't mean a factual quote).

      In another, as Phil Pilgrim99 states, near the beginning of the documentary he asks three questions on science and then characterizes those who either don't know the answers or get them wrong as being afraid of science when it could just as soon be that they are indifferent or simply never thought of the matter before. This flies in the face of his caveat against correlation without cause.

      These are only two examples. I could provide others.

  72. "Fewer people worldwide knows who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2009, than know who won Dancing With The Stars"

    This is a statement you hear in this documentary. All of this is very subjective, and at any given time, more people knew about pop culture advertised everywhere than they did about who won the Nobel Prize of Medicine that get a 10 seconds clip in the evening news. Maybe more if your country won it. And here's a surprising fact about ignorant Americans, they won most Nobel prizes in every categories except the symbolic one of the Peace Prize and for Literature (where France lead).

    Either way, more people in the 1930's knew what the latest Greta Garbo movie was, more than they did whoever won whatever in Sweden.

    If you have a scientific mind, as you claim, you really don't need to think so hard to see how fallacious such an argument is. There's a lot of this around. We are, on average, more knowledgeable about science today than we were 50 years ago.

    But, at the same time, one should not dismiss the political sphere science occupy now. That is to say, in regard to climate change, the shakedown of the entire Liberal-Democratic capitalist system somehow got to be destroyed, for some Nanny-State authoritarian monster. All in the name of science.

    Science have grown very powerful where religion and nationalism have went dim. People don't believe in God & Country, let's give them something else to feed on. Often, even people who misunderstand science, quote science as their main counterpoint in regard to anything and everything.

    So there is a fanatical element to science, well represented by the likes of Richard Dawkins. There's a scientific everything now, nothing is left off for some to the realm of doubt and philosophy, which is in itself dangerous. Where more than one positions can be correct, depending on circumstances.

    He talk a good deal about hard science, but it is all the soft science that are driving everyone crazy.

    1. At least science has a lot more to offer than religion ever did.

    2. Not quite yet, religion is responsible for the whole civilization we live in and most of its art and philosophy. The recent spur of "science" have convinced people to stop having babies, and as a result, the West is commiting a self-genocide. That's the heritage of modern science. You'll tell me about overpopulation again, that's what science done for 40 years. Result, population decline everywhere in the West, met by mass-immigration from Muslim countries. That's the world science have given us. The future is Islam, a religion much worst than Christianity.

    3. You obviously need a history lesson. By confining them to its narrow purview, religion has done it's best to stifle art and philosophy through threats and censorship. It speaks well for modernity that artists and philosophers are no longer subject to it's grip and the sooner religion loses it altogether, the better.

      Despite what you think, overpopulation in proportion to the amount of resources (sustainability) is a major problem. I suggest that you look up the most recent statistics from the World Health Organization, not that you will, the Wikipedia article on the subject, again not that you will or any reputable scientific, non-religious source, not that you will. The last thing a religee will do is read up on a topic he only thinks he knows about.

      The list of the benefits we've derived from science is innumerable and unquestionable. The benefits from religion are non-existent.

      Another ignorant post.

    4. All entirely irrelevant. What happen now is you're self-commiting genocide. Nothing else matter here, in the future, you do not exist. Overpopulation is not a problem for the first-world, the opposite is, depopulation and self-genocide is the problem. The future is death.

      And don't get things backward. Science have killed philosophy. It almost doesn't exist anymore, except in the periphery of Paris, that's about it. What I mean is, it occupy an insignificant position on public discourse, wherein science have taken over everything. And to be sure, most science is junk science. You just believe things too easily, shifting one blind faith for another.

      And science isn't that prodigal anymore. Just like medicine. It didn't create that much in the past 50 years, compared to the first half of the XXth century. They invented viagra and a whole lot of drug to cure fake-illness (new mental illnesses we come up with yearly, to justify new drugs).

      You're just too dogmatic to understand the world you live in, and you just follow the mob mentality that did deify science. You think it's a new thing to crucify science? No way, Nietzsche was doing it 130 years ago. For the same reasons I am giving you. Science is great, but humans aren't, and most science is as mystical as any old cult.

      And what I'm saying here is with an understanding that science have trumped everything. That is, most science today is not "hard science", but soft science. And people who are practicing soft science are pretending what they are doing is as valid as chemistry, and as certain as mathematics. There is so much junk science, soft science, that it overshadow the real hard science, with data and lab evidence. I mean, the kind of science that will use statistics to come up with probable results. Like psychiatry that is an entirely subjective science. But that we believe in regardless of their foolishness (homosexuality a mental illness one year, not the next; coffee abuse a mental illness the next year, who care anymore; ADD is not a real thing you know). So you have to believe in these hyper-subjective scientific fields. And they only find their validity once people believe in them. And once they do, everyone start taking drugs and the pharmaceutical can keep on making money selling junk.

      But think of this, remember what the old Nobel Prizes of medicine were? Check the first 50 years, check what they've been since. I mean, we made huge progress in the past, now there's a lot of junk around. Big Pharma even have trouble coming up with new original products, so they make up new antidepressant snake oil medicine. Which governments around the world spending billions to provide their citizenry with, with no real decline in suicide rate as a result.

      So get your head out of the sand about science. You don't know it, you just believe in it. And there is a world of difference between physics and chemistry... and the rest of all the made-up sciences that we've invented in the last 50 years to fill a vacuum.

    5. what an ignorant ramble! You call the diseases fake, just so you can say "medical science doesn't cure anything anymore"

      How stupid do you have to be to not know, that science moves forward ever faster?

      Does it scare you? Are you afraid, that you won't be able to live in fairy tales, once the true world is revealed?

      YOU are part of the problem with the human race! You like all the scientific wonders, but you don't want to have science tell you, that you are dead wrong on your childish thoughts!

    6. This is just too stupid to respond to.

    7. No I'm sorry that's just ridiculous. To clam that "most science is as mystical as any old cult" is ludicrous ignorance in the extreme. Mystical things have no proof and are little more than fantasy, science is empirical, it is testable, repeatable, observable. What are these so called "soft sciences" you're blathering about? What's really frankish is that you among the things you apprently define as "hard science" is philosophy. Seriously? You can't tell the difference between psychiatry, the pharamaceutical industry or medical science, rolling them into one bizarre ball but philosphy is fact?
      What the hell are you smoking?

      The scientific process isn't just 'look at some stuff and write about it. The process is observe, hypothesise, find evidence against, test evidence against, experiment, re-do the experiments, re-do them again, offer up the findings as a thesis to peer review, peers re-do the experiments, if hypothesis is found valid, gather more evidence/observations, attempt to find evidence against, develop theory, publish theory for peer review.

      You claim "fake diseases" and yet I'd wager that you haven't actually done any kind of scientific work to establish this position. Your claim that the only medical invention of the last 50 years is viagra, is so unbelievably wrong that I don't even know where to start. Least of all the fact that viagra is a pharmaceutical creation. Without getting into arguments about diseases on which you've stated your baffling position (Germ theory has been well established for a hundred years, were you in a cave?), medical science has created:

      infitely more safe suturing processes, mechanical prosthetic limbs, restored hearing for many deaf people, restored sight for many blind people, increased survival rates across the world for cancer patients, repairs of heart problems and kidney failures. We have organ transplant, brain surgery, replacement bones, stints to open collapsed veins and arteries, MRIs to scan through the entire body down to the microscopic level without x-rays, infinitely reduced child-birth and infant moratality rates, nerve repair, mapping of the brain, mapping of DNA, skin-grafts, better contraceptive methods for women, better contraceptive methods are being developed for men (yep, we're getting the pill, hooray! :D). That's just a few I could think of off the top of my head.

      You're also entirely wrong about the way science in general changes. Science doesn't completely change it's standpoint from one view to the extreme other. There are more than two states in the world you know?
      Newton's calculations about gravity were found to be flawed at different levels, even though they were correct at the scales he was examining. Newton was technically wrong about gravity, that doesn't mean we all started floating around when this was discovered.
      Science is refined, not completely changed. Newtons work which is still valid, remains, the rest is replaced by better infromation. Scientific knowledge only ever becomes more correct so long as the findings are properly tested.
      Oh and homosexuality was never considered a mental illness by the scientific community as a whole, only by a few "doctors" who got far too much press, due to the fact that their claims were useful to bigots.

      As for Nobel Prizes, the 2011 Physics prize went to three gentleman for demonstrating the expansion of the universe through studies of super-nova, the Chemistry prize was awarded for the discovery of Quasicrystals. So 2011 alone shows how wrong you are there.
      And for your 50 year comparison, the 1962 physics prize was awarded for theories on condensed matter, the chemistry prize: the study of globular proteins. Sure Discoveries now may not be so Earth shattering in comparison, I think it's fair to say that's because the big leaps in understanding have already been made.

      Finally, I cannot understand, why on Earth you would bring up Nietsche?

    8. Excellent response. I can't understand why on earth he would bring up anything, but unfortunately the world (and this string) are filled with individuals just like him.

    9. Little more than fantasy? As if fantasy isn't the cornerstone of science.

    10. "Little more than fantasy? As if fantasy isn't the cornerstone of science."
      If you mean that science started with fantasy (religion) as the first stage of learning, because the earliest philosphers and scientists couldn't have known better, then in their efforts to learn the truth, discovered much of that religion to be only fantasy, then you would be correct.

      If however you're suggesting that science is built on fantasy, then you really need to go back to school. No, you need to go to a different one, cos you've been taught a load of BS, mate. Watch the series and start again. Free yourself.

    11. Well, religion do obscure some scientific facts. It's like people who believe Copernicus is the one who figured out the world wasn't flat. Aristotle knew the earth was spherical! Many others before him did. So Copernicus only rediscovered what many others before him understood. But Ancient Greeks also overwhelmingly followed their religion, and we can understand many things in this world through this mythology. Science cannot help us understand things of a metaphysical nature.

    12. You're right. But you must first prove that things of a metaphysical nature exist and this you can't do without resorting to the Christian form of voodoo.

    13. "Science cannot help us understand things of a metaphysical nature." That's for sure. Are you talking about the metaphysics of the church or just the pope? Not Islam? I'm sure about that one. What about the pantheon of Hindu Gods, or Wica, or the Druids? Tarot cards? Astrology? What about the guy with the Wigi Board? Should I believe that woman at the psychic fair?

      The trouble with metaphysical truth is that it is a different truth for almost everyone. That variety must also make it unreliable and how can the truth be unreliable? Metaphysics lacks in logic, precision or even any kind of consensus among its followers. Science would not even attempt to try to explain it or understand it.

    14. As a side note, you realize that the term metaphysics acquired its current meaning only within the last 200-300 years or so. The term was originally used about 100 CE by a compiler of the works of Aristotle to describe a section of Aristotle's work which came after his treatment of physics, hence metaphysics or beyond physics.

    15. I didn't know that. I always thought it meant beyond physics or outside of science and in the spiritual realm. It's not science...it's "God knows what" it is.

    16. No. It's just that you have neither the knowledge nor the intelligence to respond to it and as such, you and those like you are the problem. I resent being advised by a wilful ignoramus such as you.

    17. Your English is on a level with your ignorance.

    18. I have read your post, and considering what you have said I deem it unnecessary to refute any of your erroneous claims.

      You do not really have a clue to what you are talking about at this time, if in the future you do hone your skills at presenting a proper argument with sources to justify your claims then maybe I will take notice, sorry.

    19. Actually, you have responded.

    20. Birth rates are not a 'one-factor' issue.

      It isn't 'science' that has convinced people to stop having babies, its a confluence of multiple factors, top of which is education--and not because they're being taught 'science'.

      Examples:

      When women are educated, they are less likely to marry young and start reproducing immediately, and when the do, they reproduce less, since they and their children are more likely to survive birthing. This is one reason certain religions like to prevent women from being educated and want to marry them off at puberty.

      They also tend to have better knowledge of contraceptive methods (and don't anyone get excited, contraception in one form or another has been around since people figured out what caused babies!).

      I could keep going, but it's too complex a subject. There are many other factors, and when they combine, they lead to falling birth rates, either temporarily or as a long-term trend.

      I pulled this information from wikipedia, but it is just stating what I have read over many years from many sources.

    21. I look at it this way: it's better to raise one child right than three badly and by the same token, it's better to have no children than raise one badly. Secondly, with the world population increasing in proportion to the amount of resources, we can use a slowed-down birth rate, even if it goes against the beliefs of ignorant religees such as Joel Cuerrier.

    22. I agree. That's an educated person's viewpoint, since you know the larger picture.

      I think part of his point was that it is the educated first world (he said 'west') that has reduced birth rates--except in the U.S. where some people are happily reproducing at biblical rates, haha!

      He's right that the third world countries are reproducing faster than ever. I was just pointing out that there are many factors affecting birth rates.

      I don't know where you get the idea that Joel Cuerrier is a 'religee.'

      I just reread his posts, and while he does warn that science is being elevated to the status of a religion (i.e., believe anything because 'science' says so, without investigating the claims first), and points out that while religion has its downside, it has also produced good (I happen to agree there, as much as I think it has more than outlived its usefulness in human society, it does fulfill certain human needs), and pointed out that the religious beliefs of certain cultures is leading to increased population in their countries.

      I don't see anywhere that he professed to belong to any religion much less promulgate a belief system.

    23. The post of his you responded to certainly promulgates a belief system, especially his blaming science for the declining birth rate in the west and coming down on it for being the catalyst (actually one of several as you have pointed 0ut), coupled with his defense of religion as promoting art and philosophy a few posts back leads me to believe that he is a religee and while I may be mistaken, it's hard to believe that he's not. However, further posts might tell.

    24. Certainly the status of women worldwide is an issue. Way too big for a comment board.

      He wasn't suggesting that we jettison science, from what I read. Just pointing out a negative side effect which we would be foolish to ignore.

      I happen to agree with him that there was a tremendous amount done in the arts due to religious support. It was done by wealthy members of the religious elite, so yes, you could say it has done so. Remember Michaelangelo? Sistine Chapel? etc? Just one example among many. That religion was a dominant social factor led to its influence on the arts, direct or indirect.

      Also, members of religious groups (not laity, just the members) were often the most educated in their given communities. Who else debates theology and philosophy except educated people? Not many, they're all too busy working in the fields and factories and taking care of the wealthy. That's part of what the protestant reformation was all about, teaching lay people to read their own bibles so they, too, could take part in the discussion.

      I guess you could call me a 'religee' too, since I'm willing to discuss these matters, and acknowledge the good with the bad.

    25. Since when is the declining birth rate in the west a negative side effect? And who does this person think he is criticizing a woman for deciding to remain childless and instead concentrate on her education? I believe it to be a matter of personal choice, Billary or no Billary or Joel Cuerrier no Joel Cuerrier.

      Since when has religion been a true patron of the arts? What you mention was not done to promote art, but rather a certain narrow set of views using art as a medium. In his time, Michaelangelo was considered no more than a tradesman and the great art that came from him and which we admire was merely a surprising side effect. If religion had not been as powerful as it was in Michaelangelo's time, Michaelangelo's art might have turned out very differently--and still have been great art. In addition, religion has been behind just about every censorship movement within the last two hundred years--the National Legion of Decency was not established as a secular organization. Anthony Comstock did not base his persecution of D.M. Bennet solely on secular grounds. As for philosohy, anybody can contemplate anything.

    26. I tend to agree with Kateye on the religious status of Joel, I was going to pick you up on it earlier as a matter of fact but decided it was pointless, as whether Joel is religious or not, he's certainly posted some tremendous twaddle. And you're right, his ongoing posts would suggest that view, however he could merely be playing devils advocate.

      As Kateye pointed out though, Joel was right in one..ish of his assertions though probably not for the reasons he thinks. That being that people accept something when told it's scientific, or presented in a lab-coat, without checking it out themselves. Unfortunately, the rest of the post that went along with it was comple garbage.

      Rather than pointing out flaws in modern science, which seemed to be the goal, Joel merely referenced a flaw in (adult) human nature, trusting authority. This, in no way, excuses the drivel about "soft-science" and is of course exactly the problem with both Theists and Atheists. Not just people who accept science over religion, as he seems to (so entirely wrongly) imply. Both sides need to excercise more and frequent critical thinking to avoid being scammed by pseudo-science, bankers, political bitchiness and religous extremist bigots, like that truly evil barsteward of a pope, benedict (razinger) the scumbag. Atheists at least havea leg up, they've freed themselves from religion, so can clearly practice critical thinking.
      We just need to assert it more readily.

      Theists, of course, will have further to go.

    27. If you're saying examine the source, you're right. It's the difference between listening to Michael Behe and William Dembski as opposed to Kenneth R. Miller and Andrew Wiles. It's the difference between lending credence to an ignorant layman over a distinguished scientist, such as Phillip E. Johnson or Chuck Missler (the peanut butter man) over Richard Dawkins and Francisco Ayala or a quack such as Dr. Sebi over Jonas Salk. It's the difference between Ivan Panin and William Lane Craig on the one hand and Bart Ehrman and Marvin Meyer who passed away today on the other--and it's also one thing to be wrong and another to be pseudo about it.

    28. Yeah, sorry I didn't mean to lecture you, I combined responses to the debate between you and Kateye, with a general statement. This was a mistake and very unclear, my apologies. Believe me, I have no questions about your skepticism.

      @Iakhotason I will absolutely argue with you, especially when you quotemine, as I find this type of argument morally and intellectualy repugnant. Your quote could be interprested in many ways and is therefor entirely useless. I don't know the source but all it says to me is that Einstein loved his imagination and valued it for allowing him to consider possiblities.

      I'm trying to work out if I'm just misunderstanding you and you're saying that creativity is necessary for scientific wonder?

    29. No umbrage taken and I could see right away what you did which was no mistake and no questioning of my skepticism.

      I rarely resort to quotes, except when they're from a blog. The concern seems to be how they are used. I recently quoted Dr. Dawkins on Kurt Wise as an example of a potentially good mind gone wrong, not as a metaphysical statement about science. If someone posits that Einstein was at heart a theist, quoting from him (and I don't mean out of context) is the most cogent and appropriate refutation, a tack employed by a number of posters on this thread. An observation about the tyranosaurus might be well backed up with a quote from Dr. Jack Horner. The problem arises when quotes are used or transmogrified to support metaphysics (supernaturalism), theology, a political point of view or statements about the nature of an intellectual endeavor such science of which Iakhotason's is an egregious example. I would appreciate your thoughts.

    30. He may be a pessimist as much as he likes. What I find disquieting in Joël's comment is that it reminds me of the xenophobic nonsense that has become more popular in my country (the Netherlands) lately.
      I may not like the islamic religion too much, but when he argues Europe will be taken over by islamic african people and that our democratic systems and our culture will dissappear as a consequence I get the impression I'm hearing someone from the french Front National or the Party for Liberty in my country. That's prejudice, not based on facts, but enimical sentiments.

    31. You're also hearing the inimical voice of paranoia.

    32. Maybe the language was imperfect, but you're being a little rude here. English is not my mother's tongue, even if I believe I have some mastery of it.

      I do not disagree with what you said. But see there, you go on to insult the Pope. That's too easy, why would you do that? He's very important to our times, which are threatened by a belligerant islamic power. He's like the clear dividing line between East and West. The Orthodox Church stands a little before, but they are a dying civilization, in a decaying society that's racist and is lost under the rubbles of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc . Ever read The Clash of Civilizations? Good book, and for now the Pope is still very necessary, for all sorts of very profound reasons.

      In Britain, Atheists have been very assertive alright. The result is that they are now turning to radical Islam. Not exactly a good evolution there.

      Do you think the Pope and Catholicism is worst than even mainstream so-called moderate Islam? Can you answer that with a straight face without all the politically correct soft-peddling?

      Atheists have no leg up here, they are being overrun by Islamists. That is what happen in Great-Britain, and that is the core of both militant Atheism and militant Islam in the Western World! Who do you think will come on top in the end? Reason and moderation?

      Atheists, if anything, need to be less assertive and more moderate. That's why despite my lack of belief in a God I would never define myself as simply Atheist. I am a secular Catholic, with all that this entail. Even if I pretend Catholicism is not who I am, it is ingrained deep within my culture. So I prefer embracing it, in the same way a Jew who do not believe in God will, rather than retreat to simple atheism, that tend to be very egotistic by nature.

    33. If you can't write clearly, you shouldn't be writing at all and if you think I'm being rude, I mean to be.

      The Pope deserves to be insulted as well as the entire Catholic religion. He and the religion he represents are simply old men with exulted views of themselves who believe that they have the authority to control people's lives by dictating to them on matters of personal choice such as abortion and birth control. The Catholic Church, including the pope and his vassals have been and are no more than conmen gulling the poor and the ignorant so they can finance their grandiose churches, nunneries, monasteries and rampant pederasty and to think that people give in, thus adding to the immense riches of the Catholic Church, riches so immense that it is nothing for it to pay off all those lawsuits arising out of the pederasty which it had sanctioned and kept hidden for so long.

      Throughout its history and well into the present, the Catholic Church has been no more than a theistic form of thuggery with its 800 years of Inquisition, witch hunts and Crusades. And to add to this cesspool, we have papal infallibility, the trinity, the Immaculate conception, indulgences and other such mephitic nonsense. And this is the organization you choose to remain with.

      Well, it's your choice, but I resent someone of your ilk telling atheists that they need to be less assertive and more moderate. Why? To restore lost power to the Catholic Church? But as I mentioned, this is typical of Catholics telling others what to do and what not do.

      One way or the other, I find what I can understood of this post and your earlier ones disgusting.

    34. Athesits are turning into "islamists"? I'd like to see your evidence for that please, since atheism is spreading in the UK according to the last census. And atheism doesn't lead to religion, seriously, what are you smoking? Critical thinking allows people to evaluate religion on it's evidence. It's a mechanism to protect oneself from being persuaded to follow supernatural claims, not a mechanism of conversion. If you started out atheist and became religious, then you were not excersing critical thinking. You were clearly lacking the information to make decisions or had some other need which was not being fulfilled. This is of course, not a problem with atheism, but a problem with the way you ran and continue to run your life.

      I didn't insult the pope off-hand, I was making a point, but since you bring it up, no the pope definitely is not important in our times. He is a very evil little man and I can say this because I know his capabilities.

      Ratzinger is extremely intelligent, very highly educated and supposedely fluent in 16 languages. This means that there is no excuse at all for the cascade of deliberate falsehoods and pure viciousness he has spread since being cardinal.

      Ratzinger lied about contraception, being one of the first major voices of our time at the vatican to denounce it as sin. He's intelligent enough to know what damage this would do, ergo evil. He then spread lies about condoms, claiming that they had "pores" which let the HIV virus through, again he's way too intelligent to believe this himself, he knew it was untrue. His decisions have literally caused the slow, agonising deaths of millions of people worldwide. Ergo evil.

      Then there's the fact that he oversaw policy on dealing with rapist and child-rapist priests. His answer, keeping the survivors silent, keeping it away from the authorities, moving the priests into other areas, where they were free to abuse again. Evil.

      This disgusting troll lied about neo-paganism, in a way that was sure to create danger and hatred against modern pagans, by claiming that Hitler was a neo-pagan. Entirely untrue as we know hitler was catholic. Yet again, Ratzinger must have known he was lying, afterall, he was in the hitler youth movement. Evil. How can inciting hatred, let alone hatred from false pretense be anything but evil?

      Let's not forget that one of his earliest acts as pope, was denounce Spain for allowing Gays adoption rights. He called it moral violence.

      And whether or not you believe Islam to be worse is irrelevant. That other extremist groups do evil, does not make it ok for the vatican to do evil. You're drawing on yet another logical fallacy.

    35. I'm curious about atheists converting to Islam, myself. I understand the rise in radical muslims in european countries, but would assume that more to be a factor of immigration, birth rates and closed communities, myself.

      I can understand Joel Cuerrier's return to catholicism, since it is something I wrestled with for a *very* long time .He is correct when he says that there are community and tradition elements in religions. Its a personal choice he made, and he seems comfortable with being part of a tradition even if he doesn't believe in it. If the church community he is part of accepts that type of 'catholicism' then its a valid choice for him, imho.

      The older I've gotten, the less willing I am to believe that presumably celibate old men who shun women as equals have the ability to understand, much less dictate, our daily lives. I would have much more respect for the vatican if it opened the priesthood and religious political track to women. It might help them make better moral choices, too. This, in my view, marginalized catholicism as a valid religious possibility.

      I never followed the current pope's background as closely as you seem to have, but what little I have heard of his pronouncements have made me very uncomfortable and reinforced my unwillingness to support him even by association.

      Although, from what I understand the vatican is essentially writing off europe and america, where the laity are too well-educated and ready to push back, and focusing on third-world converts. The types of policies you detailed are cynical but effective there.

    36. This is all very reductive and redundant. The art just is what it is, in context with the Renaissance. The history of the human race would be entirely different without this context. Pre-Christian religions were also very important. What if the Roman Empire never turned Christian? Who knows what would have happened? Did you ever read Edward Gibson? Enlightenment era historian. He pretty much blame Christians for the fall of the Roman Empire. And he did so 225 years ago. Nothing would be like anything if things went differently. As for censorship, get real about this, censorship have been a very effective promotional tool. What do we remember today? A whole bunch of books that were censored. Stuff that was popular then may well all be forgotten now. So censorship is not only a failure by itself, it create the opposite effect.

    37. First of all, his name was Edward Gibbon. Secondly, nothing you write makes any sense so I suggest that you clean up your English and then try again.

    38. One point with art... it was the 'wealth' that financed much of the arts. Being that the 'church' has been one of the wealthy over the last few centuries, it's no surprise they have paid for some of what is considered great art of the past. I don't think this is because of their beliefs, but because of their gift at manipulation and creation of wealth, giving them the ability, along with the royalty and other wealthy of the times, to pay for it.
      Priests didn't paint the Sistine Chapel, they paid an artist to do it for them. It wasn't religion or divine inspiration, it was $$ and and a brilliant artist that did it.

    39. Nice to hear from you and you're right. What's really bad is all the money that religion was able to acquire to accomplish this.

    40. Still here from time to time mate... looks like I've probably got another "cut 'n slash " coming up :( ... science willing I'll be around for awhile yet :) I'd already be dead if I listened to the likes of 'Dr.Quack' or whatever his name was.... lol... hmm, it'd be nice if a 'herbal brew' fixed all...

    41. Or perhaps a bottle of Tohey's or Hahn.

    42. Money...that's what I meant by 'support'. Artists always need patrons, whether individuals or institutions of one sort or another. Trust me, I know =(

    43. Of course, artists need patrons, but that's not the point of Docoman's post. "Trust me, I know." is unworthy of you.

    44. I was speaking from personal experience.

    45. To answer your question about religion. I'm a former nietzschean turned "Secular Catholic". My beliefs are not mystical in any sense of the word, I'm actually quite passionate about science and I read magazines about the latest discoveries on a somewhat regular basis. What I'm against is the people who excuse any opinion they hold, as an opinion that is absolutely correct since "backed by science". This is more problematic than it seem when you hold certain political positions that goes against the common wisdom. That is to say, in Nietzschean terminology, when you are not a sheep, you have to be skeptical of things too many people have taken for granted. Because they confort themselves into a false sense of certainty, given everything have turned into a science. You do understand sociology is a science for example, but it is all quite subjective in many regards. Many new words end in "logy" and are given the credential of a science. Does it mean all of that is irrefutable facts? No, it is as uncertain as a political position. In part, learning to think critically have to mean more than just accepting as irrefutable truths many things put fourth by the many sciences that surround our lives. So I am not a religious person, I am not an atheist because I detest how fanatical this bunch have gotten, and as I grew older, I reacquinted myself with part of my religious heritage, as a mean to understand the culture I am part of. And I am saying, where religion goes, people goes too. And as I was saying in another post, it is people with a religion who reproduce themselves. So it mean your position in effect have no future. Since everywhere you look, it is both the religious and the conservatives who are having babies. The Utopia of a more enlighted era is nipped in the bud. Not that I disagree at all people should move on from religion and get better acquinted with the real world, since it is beautiful in itself, in all its scientific mystery. But unbelievers need to have strong morals, a ethical system that rival that of Judeo-Christianity. Or else, they are doomed. As they are now, because their belief system lead to extinction. So think critically about the society we live in, and what it lead to. Education is great, to build something for the future, to leave great things behind. But if you have no one to leave all that to, what was it all for?

    46. Why can't you write clearly? Just what are you jabbering about? How about plain English?

    47. robert, I had zero problem understanding Joel Cuerrier's post.

      I think you are showing your own bias towards English as a first language, as well as your emotional dislike of the poster for whatever personal reason.

      You are someone who knows the value of scientific inquiry; I suggest you make a conscious effort to set aside your own bias, reread his post with an open mind, and address its points, not your emotion.

      That's he's been personally attacked and felt he had to defend his own return to his heritage as a catholic is unfortunate. He's stated he's not a mystic, that he loves science, and he's made a personal choice.

      You sidestepped the actual point he was making and deflected to an irrelevancy. There are many, many theist scientists, and it doesn't detract from their science at all (except in a few cases, and we know who they are, right?).

      He was discussing the fact (and he's right, from what I can understand of the statistics, and I've seen similar reports over the years) that groups which hold certain belief systems are outnumbering those with others and will eventually replace them.

      He also agreed with me that it is a complex issue involving multiple factors.

      I have yet to see you address any of those points.

    48. Well maybe you have a high tolerance for jibberjabber. I don't and I'm not going to make an effort to unravel it. And please note I was right from the beginning about the infusion of his religion. Now that it turns out he's a Catholic, it's obvious why he criticizes the declining birthrate in the west and why he comes down on childless women who obtain a Ph.D.'s--and it's all despicable.

      You're right, there are many theistic scientists such as Kenneth R. Miller and Francisco Ayala, both Catholics, who manage to leave their religion at the door of their labs and for that as well as their accomplishments, they deserve the highest respect. However, Joel Cuerrier doesn't, especially in his defense of the Pope and Catholicism and in his telling atheists to softpeddle it.

      If you write in clear English what this "complex issue" is or which points you would like me to address, I will try to resond to them.

      If you want to spend time unraveling his twaddle (and by the way, I'm not the only one who regards it thus), that's up to you. By I'm surprised that you would want to.

    49. "...groups which hold certain belief systems are outnumbering those with others and will eventually replace them." (i.e., religious believers are out-reproducing nonbelievers.)

      Discuss.

    50. On its face, it makes no sense. What is meant by out-reproducing them? Does this mean that if two religious believers have a child, that child is ipso facto a believer?

      Prognostications are a dime a dozen and one's just as good as another.

    51. Really? That's all you understood? ipso facto? Children are raised to follow their parents' religion, especially uneducated ones. Sometimes religious indoctrination is the only education they get. I have to explain this to someone as smart as you?

      We're not talking 'prognostications' here, we're talking statistical population trends. You can find plenty on the subject, if you're interested (which I am, although you don't seem to be, since you just nitpick and deflect). I've been following the trends for years.

      Why do you think I'm concerned that religious dogma is being inserted into science classrooms in a supposedly first-world country? Because what Joel Cuerrier said is correct. Educated first-world populations are declining; they are being replaced, and rapidly, by uneducated or poorly-educated third-world populations.

      Now, my solution would be to provide access to education, including teaching them how to think critically, to third-world children, somehow or another. (Oddly enough, that would include educating the children of illegal immigrants, unpopular a subject as that is to some Americans.)

      The author of this video appears to understand the importance of education, and critical thinking skills, as well, regardless of what anyone thinks of his production values.

      P.S. Remember our discussion about what 'community' means? This is community at its largest.

    52. Really, that's all I understand of your snippet.

      When someone makes a statistical claim as Jose Cuerrier did, it's up to him to provide the sources, which he did not do nor for that matter have you--it's not for me to go on a fishing expedition to check him or you out.

      "And will eventually replace them" is an empty prognostication (as opposed to "If current trends continue, . . . . ) if ever there was one.

      As for access to education, especially for third-world children and the offspring of illegal aliens, who is to foot the bill? I really hope you don't think it's the U.S.

      It's unfortunate that the all too often, author of this video does not practice what he preaches--and this has nothing to do with his production values.

    53. For those of us following the trends over the last 30 years, we don't need to look up old data we're already familiar with. You're really not required to participate in the conversation if it doesn't interest you, though; since you weighed in I assumed you were.

      "Will eventually replace them" is already happening, in certain European countries. Again, I've kept up with this trend. It isn't exactly a new idea, and populations do flow around the world.

      As far who should pay for it, I believe Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation is doing exactly that--I could be wrong, not stopping to research since I'm at work--I know they have a program to help inner city American schools with technology, and I thought they were doing some world-wide initiative but that may be focused on medicine, not technology; other technology billionaires are pursuing things like inexpensive, tough computers that recharge from solar cells to be distributed children in third-world countries.

      As for the U.S., I'd rather see some of the billions being p****d away on futile military campaigns being spent on education instead; both at home (our own schools are becoming abysmal) and abroad.

      Since the reason we're involved militarily overseas is to protect the interest of American multinational corporations, I'd love to see those pirates step up to the plate. Maybe redeem themselves a little bit and give something back to their--yes--community. Since they consider the world their playing field, the world is also their community and they do indeed owe something back, both at home and abroad. No, they did not build that business 'all by themselves.' They had a heck of a lot of military support which the rest of us are paying for, and too many are dying for.

      Disclaimer: This is not a scientific research paper, this is an op-ed.

    54. Obviously you don't take the documentary as seriously as you claim. Remember, the one who asserts has the burden of proving his assertions, research paper or op-ed and stating that you and unnamed others have been keeping up with this trend does not cut it. This is no different from the tactic taken by Iakhotson when he claimed that more innocent people were incarcerated than ever before.

      If you're stating that our money would be better spent in education rather than the military, etc., I agree with you--at home, but not abroad. We don't owe other countries, their dictators and puppet governments anything and we are not the world's policeman nor should we regard ourselves as such. In short, no more foreign involvement. We have enough problems of our own. On the other hand, private concerns, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Catholic Church, can do with their money what they want.

    55. I clearly stated I was giving my opinion (that's what 'op-ed' meant), and that my recollection of statistics corresponds with what Joel Cuerrier was saying. That's as far as I'm going on statistics, I'm at work. I'm still listening to the doc, had to stop the other day.

      You've stated elsewhere that you don't believe in 'community,' or at least view it in a very narrow sense. However, the 'isolationist' dog was laid to rest at the beginning of the twentieth century. It's long dead and decomposed by now. We live in the world, not the U.S.

      Thank science and technology for that. I do. And coming back to the documentary, if I read the blurb right and understand the gist of what he's saying (I think he could have done it much more concisely, but that's beside the point), it is that lack of education and critical thinking skills is to all our detriment. Worldwide.

      BTW, I don't remember seeing anywhere in the comments guidelines that one can't post one's opinion or speak from experience or that they must provide annotated footnotes to every comment. I explained the scope of my information. I've made my disclaimers so no one is being misled. That's all I feel the need to do.

    56. "For those of us following the trends over the last 30 years, we don't need to look up old data we're already familiar with." Does this sound like merely an op-ed opinion?

      Whether or not the "isolationist dog" was laid to rest at the beginning of the 20th century is as irrelevant as your statement about the comment policy. We certainly need this isolation now. It should not be our concern if other countries can't take care of their citizens and we have enough problems at it is. If you want to weep crocodile tears over the plight of others less fortunate, that's your choice. If you want to try to do something about it, that's also your choice. But I particularly resent your implied implication of such an obligation on me or anyone else. No, I live in the United States. I believe Achem and Epicurus live in Canada--and that's it.

    57. "Does this sound like merely an op-ed opinion?" Why, yes, yes it does. Why do you think I put the disclaimer in? You are completely free to ignore anything I said in that or any post if it doesn't meet with your approval, as I said before.

      Re: community: I stated my opinion, you stated yours, a while back. You understand what I mean, I understand what you mean. That dog's dead, too.

      My statement about the comment policy was a reminder that 'you're not the boss of me.' Seemed apropos =)

      (Bet you can't name that meme origin!)

    58. You begin with a statistical statement and then end with a disclaimer. Therefore, I take this to mean that the entire post is simply your opinion with no factual (statistical) accuracy implied. Fine.

    59. P.S.
      About four hours ago, you wrote, "We're not talking 'prognostications' here, we're talking statistical population trends." Where's the disclaimer or is this just merely an opinion?

    60. P.S. You just hit my last nerve. Welcome to ignore.

    61. I'd agree with most everything, but the question of education is solely national. It's not something we can help with a transnational bureaucracy and subsidies. Nevermind the fact the US is broke and pay too much for transnational bureaucracies as it is. As I stated in a previous comment, the problem in the US is the quality of the education in your high schools is, on average, terrible. Especially the prototypical inner-city underfunded public school. Yet, this very issue is not even talked about in your upcoming elections, or only superficially by promoting higher education. When the worst problem is that many people in the US complete high school and yet, have learned almost nothing.

    62. What's your excuse?

    63. I wasn't advocating transnational bureaucracy; just saying that at one level or another those of us who benefit from other countries owe them an equal benefit. That's my personal belief.

      I also agree with you about the quality of education and have discussed it with friends and relatives who are or were high school teachers.

      I feel the entire political discourse has become nothing more than sound bites and deflection to keep anyone from looking carefully at the real issues. Facebook is rife with soundbites, most of which make the most ridiculous underlying assumptions (along the lines of the "so when did you stop beating your wife?" question) and tell people to 'like it if they agree.' /facepalm

      Disclaimer: All of the above are my own opinions not backed up by statistical analysis or research of any sort beyond my personal experience and education. I further understand that posts by Joel Cuerrier are stating his opinon, hopefully based on some sort of life experience which he is free to express at his own discretion.

    64. If he is born Christian in some Western European or Blue State American cities. No, he will become an Atheist, as most 30 and under are. If he is born Muslim, he will remain Muslim almost without exception (and young people are more radical than their parents). As for me being Catholic, you are completely missing the point. I am removed from any aspect of the religion, but identify as a Catholic, as a cultural heritage. I am from Québec, the identity we hold as Catholic have been central to our own existence and survival in North-America.

      So maybe you believe culture don't matter? To you, wouldn't it make any difference if everyone behaved the same and had the same language, so long as they understood science? The problem is, the individualistic understanding of society the atheist in postmodernity hold, as belonging to no tribe or nation end up beind detrimental to the desire to reproduce. So there is no cycle here. No way to make this type of society work, because it cannot survive with the values it purport. It's all self-destructing. Kind of like young people today will embrace libertarianism, because it vibrate with their own sense of absolute freedom, disconnected from the society they belong to.

      As for Catholicism, your bias are just those of our era. You can't see the forest for the trees and you don't have an accurate perception of the disastrous results your nihilism engender.

      Maybe you think too much within your own bubble. Which is that science trumps all. Thus, you figure Metaphysics, studied by such famous atheists as Heidegger, is just some mumbo-jumbo that's not even worth thinking about. And that was my point, that science have destroyed philosophy... and in a way, critical thinking as well. By taking it over, and shifting all fields of philosophical thought to the realm of new sciences.

    65. Oh, you're removed from any aspect of the religion? Well then, do you want me to quote what you said about the Pope? Do you want me to quote your advice to atheists --and don't try the smoke screen of a culture and nothing more. If you and those like you had their way, everyone would be Catholic--or else.

      What you describe as my biases against Catholicism are the result of examining the hard facts in considerable, disgusting detail. So don't you go telling me that I can't see the forest for the trees and don't even attempt the old hellfire and brimstone tack of trying to scare me into believing that what you call my nihilism can end only in disaster.

      And yes, metaphysics is some mumbo jumbo unworthy of any serious thought (and Heidegger's cogitations on it are just as valid as those of my neighbor's dog) and if science destroys what you regard as philosophy, more power to it.

    66. Joël Cuerrier
      " he will become an Atheist, as most 30 and under are" if that were true i would be ecstatic but could you point me to where you got that? could you define atheist for me please? you seem to think it involves science,culture and a value system.

    67. That's the problem. There seems to be a growing number of posters on this website making unsupported statistical claims and when asked for back up resort either to deflection or umbrage and sometimes an eldritch combination of both. How does this tactic differ from similar ones employed by religees?

    68. robertallen1
      if someone states something as a belief ,opinion or the like then i do not expect them to back it up. but if it is asserted or implied to be true/fact then i feel it is appropriate to ask for references.

    69. Exactly. In at least three recent instances, people made statistical assertions (not statements of belief or opinion) which they took umbrage at being asked to back up--and back up does not consist of saying, "I just know this."

    70. robertallen1
      while i agree. i think Kateye70 was clear it was an opinion. and the opposition to Lak went on too long. i have no desire to go over these instances again as i avoided them the first time around.

    71. Joël Cuerrier is most likely French speaking. Why don't you make an effort if you are going to read him or leave him alone if you do not understand what he writes.
      Every one who writes in this forum, do it in their best ability.
      1i

    72. If he can't write clearly, that's his problem. I don't have to bend over backwards to try to fathom his meaning.

    73. It is hilarious what you're saying here. The world is not one place without any border! The population of Europe have been decreasing for a long time. So basically, the future is African and Muslim now, that's it. It is the engine of population growth in this world. Japan is the only place with a strict restriction on all immigration, and their population is declining fast. All first-world countries are declining. Overpopulation is not a problem in Canada or Norway or Sweden, we are not one world, without border.

      Maybe you think it will be all fine. Who care if the future belong to Afghan women (7 children on average)? Right, I mean, they're worst off than any woman ever been in the last 2500 years in the western world.

      That's the problem here, the most educated are committed to their own self-genocide. While the most ignorant are giving us our future generations. This was all very predictable from the start... and it is a zoologist that predicted it in the 1970's. Desmond Morris was one of those proponents of the "overpopulation problem". On the flip side, he saw what was coming, wealth and educated people will stop having babies, poor and illiterate people will have tons of them. It is what have happened. You do understand the economic crisis is nothing else than this. It's got nothing to do with the economy, everything to do with demographic crisis. The Greeks cushioned by a Welfare State they never paid for decided they didn't need to have new taxpayers (birthrate at 1.2), that they didn't need to work (retire at 50) and then, someone's surprised that this doesn't add up? This is true of all countries in trouble now. Italy, Spain too had no children for a generation. Germany didn't have children for a generation, but they are working harder and longer. Still, they will collapse too.

      So overpopulation have been fueled by science how? Because it is entirely based on false projections of 60's and 70's scientists that people started fearing the worst. That was the heyday of overpopulation rhetoric. Since, every rich countries (except a few like France, Ireland, Australia, USA) is in net population decline, in their native population. This is slowed down artificially by injecting large amount of people from Third-World countries. So don't worry, without mass-immigration, population decline in some areas of Europe would go at such a pace that you'd see populations halves themselves over 40 years periods. In effect too, Europe will turn African in the broader sense. Since white people in general around the world stopped having babies, the result will be simple, they will be replaced by other people, with different culture.

      There's got to be a middle-ground among the ruins we are leaving behind us. Between a future of more illiterate Afghan women, and childless divorced PhD graduate woman living in a collapsing Western world with no future. While we talk about debt, our greatest debt is our lack of progeny really, one goes with the other. This has nothing to do with religion versus science, it is pure common sense every civilizations understood in the past. There is no such thing as overpopulation in the Western World. It's a problem in Pakistan/India/Bangladesh/China/Nigeria and so fourth, it is not our problem.

    74. So what are you suggesting in this wall of twaddle, that we jettison science, that we increase the birth rate in the west? That people be forced into having more children? And by the way, what's the matter with a "childless, divorced Ph.D. graduate woman? " As matter of fact, what is a "Ph.D. graduate?"

    75. Would you do Robert a favor and tell him if you are a "religee" or not, he needs a bone to chew.
      1i

  73. I suggest this documentary to renamed: "Propaganda Dressed As Critical Thought"

    1. Phil Pilgrim99
      what i find most telling is as you previously stated you watched until the part on chiropractic care. others are upset about other alternative medicines being brought up. still others will object to the religious section and so on. the common thread is that when a belief that is already held is opposed people get defensive but they do not oppose the other subjects that aren't held as true. that is not how a person approaches a subject critically. you have to suspend what you already believe and move forward on the facts or lack of that are being presented. you have yet to provide proof that your belief is scientific or backed by hard facts. the presenter even stated that their might be benefits to chiropractic care in conjunction with established medical treatment. i suspect that you heard something you don't agree with so you closed your mind to what was being said. we all do that to differing degrees. but docs such as this one can give a person the tools to make better judgements on claims. even if you do not agree with everything contained within

    2. I've now watched the whole documentary, and it's even clearer to me that this documentary is not about critical thinking - as it pretends to be. There are just too many unsubstantiated claims, leaps in logic, and references to unnamed sources for me to take it seriously as an exercise in critical thinking.
      For example: 1. around 3 min 50 seconds in it's claimed that those people who gave incorrect answers in the questionnaire see science and technology as "strange and frightening". There's no basis (evidence presented) for this conclusion at all - they could all be just oblivious to their ignorance.

      2. around 6 mins in, it's stated we now have 2 societies - those that value science & technology, & those that do not , & shortly after that implies that none of those that actually do value science & technology hold beliefs that might be classified as pseudoscience, & vice versa. This is black & white simplistic rubbish.
      3. around 7 min in, it quotes an "unscientific" British newspaper survey - and you want me to believe this is critical thinking - what a joke !. Then there are quite a few other references to "informal" surveys - these sources are not referenced & therefore impossible to check - unverifiable !

      There are dozens of such examples of this sort of unscientific rubbish in this documentary.

      Then we have the likes of some of you here declaring that those who express skepticism are closed minded & "defensive", & you demand proof ".. your belief is scientific or backed by hard facts ..". This is demanding a quality of argument not evident in the documentary, or in the commentary of those such as yourself. This approach is just point scoring & game playing.

      For the record, I do have a vested interest here - that is that good science & genuine rationality be promoted because they are indispensable if our species is to survive. As such, this documentary is counterproductive because it gets science & rationality a bad name.

      And for the record, I'm not religious, have no vested interests in "alternative medicines", think the BCA's actions of false advertising are disgusting & that it's appalling that that journalist went to jail for exposing them.

  74. 8mins in I would consider, critically, is this a case of fundamentalist sciencism, unfairly dragging pseudoscience into realms it never came from? Psuedoscience is not a fundamentalist movement. Ideas, thoughts & consciousness do not exist in physical reality. Science requires 3D verification. Quantum theory nips @ the heels of 4D but remains a theory & therefore only an idea. It seems a little immature to show a picture of a yogi while selling the negative connotations of pseudo science. Here you have a master of critical thinking being tagged a stereotype with such an amazing lack of critic the mind boggles. All of a sudden it becomes just another mindless blubber of pro capitalist propaganda we have all become so bored of.

    20 something mins in.....I bet this guy went to Yale. I don't hear critical thinking. I hear more recital of studies & data & very profound proclamations. I really don't see how this is anything good for science or critical thinking. Likely sponsored by Pfizer.

    Thanks for watching.

  75. the rational science minded are mostly hypocrites. they say people of faith are closed minded yet believers are continually in a state of being torn between the rational and the heart. they battle with doubt daily yet alot of the academics i've meet are so arrogant in the position that they believe what they know is truth and real with no doubt it would seem. start a conversation on the paranormal, they seem totally determined to trample all over it and shut it down as quickly as possible as if they couldn't bare the thought of one of their peers finding them engaged in a topic so childish. how is that a good representation of the pioneering spirit that science often claims itself to be ?
    or i guess some so called intellectuals are all about giving lectures, receiving awards and enjoying the hiked up view from the shoulders of their peers. such individuals are not the true scientist yet this would seem to be a near majority. i of course could be wrong unlike yourself.

    1. You know nothing about science. Your post is no more than a paean to ignorance.

  76. I think critical thinking is not found in this documentary but rather the opposite! I would caution, use critical thinking when watching this.

    1. Unless you can point to specific instances, your comment is nonsensical.

  77. Oh my. The digression, the digression.

  78. think and think more

    1. Ipat_00
      thinking more isn't the answer. not to be picky but we have to learn to think better. contemplating on the wrong idea or process for a long time or more just leads to a lot of wasted time

  79. Information can be bent to support any argument. No real critical thinking here. Experience and dealing with real disease issues is where the rubber meets the road...

  80. This is propaganda of the worst sort. Right now I'm squinting at the fine print on the product insert from my local pharmacy's annual flu vaccine. 'Mercury [Thimerosal], 25 mg.'

    To quote the narator:

    'Thimerosal is no longer used in the US'

    The film is Big Pharma disinfo from start to finish.

    1. Why don't you do some independent research BEFORE making your claim?

    2. xactly what i thought

    3. Don't think. You're not good at it.

    4. won't think,sure u'll do it for me-luv u

  81. The ability to enable people to make their own videos & share them with the world was always going have it moments.

    Thanks for watching.

  82. Just for sh*ts and giggles, I looked up "Dr." Sebi. Here's what is said on his own website:

    "Dr. Sebi never attended school, not even kindergarten."

    "Doctor?"....... ummmmmm no.

    Can we now ignore the troll and move on?

  83. I think there's a 'baby in the bathwater' conversation going on here. Either all natural or all scientific. How about a more holistic approach as in--use everything.

    The scientific method has caused *some* (not all, *some* in case anyone isn't paying attention to qualifiers!) doctors to focus only on one aspect of a patient instead of the entire person as a whole. That attitude was more prevalent, as was the "I'm your doctor, don't question anything I've told you" attitude, back 40 or 50 years ago. Times have changed, medical professionals' attitudes have changed.

    I would agree there are certain natural curatives not being utilized because they are not patentable and therefore not profitable, but as pointed out, modern medicine has done a great deal for our longevity and well-being.

    The problem isn't the scientific method or modern pharmacology. It's recognizing that a. humans are made up of various systems that integrate into one whole being. You can't pull a part out like you can in a machine and expect the rest of the system to not respond to the invasion.

    Likewise, b. patients have to take responsibility for themselves. We have to be aware of our own systems and not just take anything and everything because someone wrote a prescription. Do your research and then listen to your own body. No one knows it as well as you!

    1. "Natural curatives are not patentable therefore not profitable" I buy tomatoes all the time and they're not patented. Someone is making a profit from their sales. The idea that something must be patented to make a profit just isn't true and is a lame argument used by the anti pharma types. At first glance it appears to have an irrefutable logic to it but upon deeper inspection that logic does not hold water.

      The rest of your comment is good common sense.

    2. Look at all the money Bayer made out of aspirin or Crest out of toothpaste. It's terrible, isn't it?

    3. ROB,u got ur x.....left u somfin else

    4. Obviously you have a problem writing in standard English.

  84. 8mins in I would consider, critically, is this a case of fundamentalist sciencism, unfairly dragging pseudoscience into realms it never came from? Psuedoscience is not a fundamentalist movement. Ideas, thoughts & consciousness do not exist in physical reality. Science requires 3D verification. Quantum theory nips @ the heels of 4D but remains a theory & therefore only an idea. It seems a little immature to show a picture of a yogi while selling the negative connotations of pseudo science. Here you have a master of critical thinking being tagged a stereotype with such an amazing lack of critic the mind boggles. All of a sudden it becomes just another mindless blubber of pro capitalist propaganda we have all become so bored of.

    20 something mins in.....I bet this guy went to Yale. I don't hear critical thinking. I hear more recital of studies & data & very profound proclamations. I really don't see how this is anything good for science or critical thinking. Likely sponsored by Pfizer.

    Thanks for watching.

    1. What is fundamentalist (sic)sciencism?
      Where do thoughts and consciousness exist in?
      Quantum theory is only an idea?

      You made your claims so now the burden of proof lays on you, show us your stuff!

    2. Speaking of critical thinking, what do you think of Francisco Ayala?

    3. All I know about Ayala, is he is a biologist and a ID opponent. Will read up on him.

    4. There's an article on him in Wikipedia. Yesterday, I viewed the debate between him and William Lane Craig which I didn't like for reasons I'll explain to you after you have reviewed it.

    5. Are you trying to saying that there is anything respectable in pseudoscience? Also, quantum theory is far more than just an idea.

      It's amazing how those of your ilk try to refute just about everything they don't like by terming it capitalist propaganda. I see nothing wrong with constructive capitalism just as I see nothing wrong with the number of poor considerably outdistancing the number of rich.

  85. haven't you guys noticed that,with the science based medicine,the side effects often(almost always)surpass the cure(s)?one is never sure of the outcome....you go in with a problem and you come out with five!

    1. But often the side effect of no treatment is death, I'd rather leave hospital with five problems than none at all.... :)

  86. chemicals will never cure anything organic.......go natural and the acids in our bodies are neutralized and reversed to an alkaline state.all,i repeat,all the so called irreversible medical conditions have been reversed over and over again by mere application of plants and herbs.the guy in the video is only about bigpharma propaganda,selling us more death!open your eyes folks,you can cure yourself more efficiently and permanently with natural and not artificial medicine.

    1. And just what are your credentials?

  87. Phil Pilgrim99
    1. do you think that chiropractic care is scientific?
    2. do think a testimonial given by someone you don't know on the internet is evidence that can be used to reach an informed conclusion?
    3. do you think someone who claims to be able to cure a wide variety of conditions that if not treated properly could result in permanent damage or death should have to provide a testable and observable methodology that can be repeated by a qualified skeptic?

    1. "over the edge"
      I'll gladly answer these 3 questions but how about first responding to my reply (below) to Vlatko, yourself, Malchick & theodd1.

    2. you didnt ask him anything. there isnt a single question mark in your entire last post to vlatko.

    3. Epicurus
      That's exactly right. but I do have a question for you: how come you've not replied to my question to you ? (about placebo)

    4. Phil Pilgrim99
      that seems fair. i only have one problem. you stated " how about first responding to my reply (below) to Vlatko, yourself, Malchick & theodd1." my post was in response to your post(s). i see no questions asked of me but if you wish to ask a question i will answer if i can. but seeing as this was our first interaction on this topic why answer my questions with anything other than an answer?

    5. Answers for Over the Edge
      ! Chiropractic is not science according to the definition of science - but it worked for me. I don't want to be an advertisement for the industry (as I said in a recent post - I consult my medical practitioner first) but accusations that I'm ignorant about of placebo, that my behavior is suspicious, my claims have "..the mark of a fraud & trickster", that my account is invalid because I haven't presented "solid scientific evidence", or for that matter that I'm susceptible to "conspirative" reasoning, are just amusing & a little frustrating.

      Are there many charlatans in that industry ? yes !, how many people suffer injury & pain due to these criminals who also steal their money ? thousands, maybe millions, & it's heartening to see that the BCA is being outed. Are there very many charlatans in mainstream medicine ? yes. How many lethally incompetent medical practitioners are there ? way too many (I nearly died due to one). Do I condemn & dismiss all medical practitioners ? No. Some chiropractors are charlatans, do I condemn all of them ? No ... for reasons which I hope are obvious.
      2. No. Absolutely not. But while personal experience is not "scientific evidence" it's no grounds to dismiss such experience as invalid.
      3. Yes.

      Apologies for the delay in answering your questions. I got distracted by trying to sort out some prejudiced & dogmatic ("scientific") zealots posting on this site. That won't happen again, and as a new poster in this venue, have learned from your example that asking questions is the better way. Thankyou

    6. Phil Pilgrim99
      1. i am glad that you know it is not science. and as long as nobody makes claims that are not backed up and could cause others harm. i have no issue with you spending your own money seeking this treatment. did i make any of those accusations? i did imply that you were being closed minded but nothing more
      2. perfect
      3. perfect
      thank you while i still don't 100% agree i think that this has been beaten enough for now. by the way welcome and be warned no matter what side you come down on for almost any topic you will be tasked with defending claims and stances. sometimes by less than polite people (sometimes it is me). back up your claims,defend your stance,explain yourself well, be honest and ignore the rest. let the games begin

    7. Thanks for the advice, and sorry, you did not make any of those accusations.
      I realised that error as soon as my post was displayed and would've corrected it immediately but haven't figured out how to edit a post once posted - can you give me a clue where to find out how to ?

    8. Phil Pilgrim99
      in order to edit a post just click the "edit " button below the post you wish to edit (beside the reply button) then click save edit after changes are made. also try reading the comment policy (not that you said anything wrong) to avoid any issues or answer any questions in the future

    9. Thank you

  88. And not to get too political or anything, but what about the overwhelming amount of 9/11 that disproves the official report? It seems, even for scientists, nationalist folk lore still wins over.

  89. One of my favorite quotes on this subject comes from Dorothy Sayers: "If we teach our children how to read without teaching them how to think, then we leave them at the mercy of the printed word." Her essay, Lost Tools of Learning, is a great read, but I can't say that she'd be a believer of evolution today.

  90. When my mum started chemo she was given an option to take part in a drug trial, using an old drug in a new way. She wasn't sure so I did some asking around and was told that people doing this sort of thing would often weather the storm better than those that opt out. Their thinking was that it had something to do with the fact that they get more care and attention and are monitored more closely. It makes them feel better. Some doctors here (uk) will also prescribe acupuncture and other alternative therapies for much the same reason. I pushed her into it, positive thinking and a little extra care must be a good thing? Who knows, it was a shot :) Now I just hope the data is useful ;)
    Edit. Sorry! Should also say that we never were told whether or not she got the drug, they treated her as if she did.

    1. your mum's cancer will dry out in weeks without chemo and it will cost you less all the way......checkout dr Sebi on utube

    2. Actually it all went a bit mushy after we buried her, but now she's a cherry tree so it's ok ;)

    3. I am really,really sorry about your mum.Truly.The guys here are mad at me for advicing you-well,I guess they're right but,I never meant harm.Only wanted to help.They say Sebi is a quack (like myself-I'm an artist),if Sebi was a quack (never got a formal educational)the world definitely needs quacks like him.The big pharmaceutical firms that kills 35,000 people per year with aspirin alone aren't quacks???Sebi cured all the patients the science based medics condemned to death and,up till now it's yet to be reported he lost a patient......just take your time to investigate.Nice day,dewflirt.

    4. Let's look at your Dr. Sebi (Alfredo Bowman). This is the man who states that viruses and mircroorganisms don't cause disease--it's all done by mucous. This is the man who denies that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and avers that the malady can be cured by simple doses of herbs--in fact, as far as he is concerned, veganism cures everything. To anyone desiring more knowledge of this quack, I recommend "A Skeptical Examnination of Sebi's Alleged Cure for Aids," by Gary C. Booker, M.D. which is on the internet.

      You should be ashamed of yourself for posting.

    5. lols

    6. Is that the best you can do?

    7. u bet....your belt never left u

    8. Trevis Robotie
      why when i go to his site he seems more interested in selling me something instead of explaining things to me? also does he provide any "proof" that has the before and after conditions of these people documented and verified by an independent party? why not expose his healing abilities to a skeptic like James Randi and get the million dollars and uuse that money to "help" more people? finally i will use a quote from you that expresses it better then i could (from Derren Brown miracles for sale) "Derren should investigate a nigerian healer(amongst others)called TB Joshua.To me he seems authentic but, these muthaf....s are so good,they'd fool almost anybody.Money is involved as usual"

    9. Hi Over,yes it's true I wrote those words about TB....notwithstanding,TB is helping a lot of folks (in every sense).If he's ripping them off,I don't know but,one thing for sure is,he is giving a lot back.I am not religious or anything like that,rather I'd tell you that I can't stand religions because of their history up till present.I am as skeptical as all of you,but then I know when to step on my brakes-as they say here in Italy:piedi di piombo-lead om my feet when I am face to face with dubiuos situations.I don't dive in as you might think....I made a mistake by giving medical advice to dewflirt and I have apologized for that.Now,I'll tell you why I mentioned Sebi to dewflirt(but pls don't take this again for publicity).I had seasonal allergy for over 20yrs,22 to be exact.From march till september,every year,running nose,itchy eyes,olfactics gone etc etc.Prior to this,I have used practically every product in the standard pharmacies to no avail.It even got worse after I tried a vaccine years back.I got in touch with Sebi's office in California.I honestly can't tell you I know who replied me but,in the e-mail,they wanted to know what my usual diet was.....I was later told to eliminate dairy foods and animal flesh and that,if there's no improvement then I'd be adviced as to what herbs to purchase.Call it placebo or what you will but,after seven days,in mid april,I started smelling everything!I just couldn't believe it.In less than 2 weeks,my allergy went down drastically,I only had to spit some phlegm at dawn and for the rest of the day I was ok!Over,I never had the time to buy anything.Nothing!Now,pls tell robertallen that I am not here to fight but to learn.You guys are extremely intelligent and I appreciate that a lot,but but but you need not use your intelligence like a sword.Yes,this all virtual,but then we're human beings behind the scene.Peace and LOVE

    10. Anecdotally, when I moved to New Jersey 30+ years ago I developed terrible seasonal allergies. Last year I took myself off every pharmaceutical drug except ibuprofen as needed, and this year I haven't had any seasonal allergy symptoms other than a sneeze now and then.

      I didn't make any dietary changes, either. I think what happens is that after being in an environment for a certain length of time our bodies adapt to it. I think the problem is alleviating the symptoms in the first place. =)

    11. I tested positive for graminacee and parietaria (even now)these plants are everywhere here,but I've been ok for the past 2years.I can't explain this.I haven't moved at all....

    12. Well, Dr. Sebi can't either.

    13. Rob,Sebi or not,I would not expect the big guys of world DRUGS to promote ppl like Sebi,no matter what results or certificates they have to back up their claims.It's simply bad business for them.If you come up with an alternative medicine,you get branded 'charlatan' and that's it.they don't want to know if you're really good or not and I understand that.This is BUSINESS-If you cook something in the lab that follows every indoctrination of the schools of modern medicine,they give you a Nobel even if your stuff kills ppl,just because they know where you're coming from and they can relate to you.You probably won't admit it but this is the sad truth

    14. There is no such thing as alternate medicine--it's all medicine and none of it has anything to do with Dr. Sebi or, for that matter, you.

      The sad truth is not that there are doctors and researchers who spend their lives trying to make positive contributions (so what if the pharmaceutical companies benefit from it), but that there are people like you and Dr. Sebi who spread their ignorance and quackery (yes, that's all it is despite what you ramble on about in your ignorant way) to those they find gullible enough to toss their money away on it.

      resent it when someone as ignorant as you've shown yourself to be impugns those with impeccable credentials and transmogrifies Dr. Sebi's lack of them into a screed against his perceived capitalistic evils of the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry in particular. A word about the greed of the pharmaceutical companies, certain sera, such as those for small pox and diptheria (diseases which are now rare in this country thanks to mainstream medicine and no thanks to Dr. Sebi and quacks like him), are dispensed free of charge when needed.

      By placing Dr. Sebi above all science, you are no better than a religee and just as despicable.

    15. Trevis Robotie
      you stated ",I would not expect the big guys of world DRUGS to promote ppl like Sebi" i agree totally. but i can list many advancements that weren't promoted by those who would not benefit from it. here are my concerns. science doesn't play nice even to it's own so if you want to be included you better be prepared to defend yourself.Einstein couldn't get a job as a scientist and his ideas challenged one of the giants of science but he was right and he could prove it that is all that matters.sebi has not given any evidence that would be considered scientific so he is dismissed. the owners of these drug companies are portrayed as immoral and only concerned with their own best interests. maybe they are. many of these owners and their families die or suffer from diseases that this treatment claims to cure. do you really believe that these owners would die in order to keep this secret?

    16. You said you moved to your current location over 20 years ago. It took me at least that long to get past the worst of my seasonal allergies. I grew up the tropics. I went back after an absence of over 30 years, and even though everything was in bloom, I had no problems.

      Our immune systems are complex, I think, and learn over time. You could also have a food allergy; my niece has a son with a compromised immune system and had to take him off of just about everything until she determined what he could safely eat.

      I read one interesting study that posited the rise in seasonal allergies in the west has more to do with removing the more aggressive pests our immune systems were developed to fight (such as worms) and now they are hypersensitive just to have something to do! =)

      I think the lesson here is that our medical advancements have to be utilized with caution and not taken for granted. Benefits always come with their downsides, and one size does not fit all (life rule-of-thumb!).

    17. You're right, especially about our immune systems (which creationists idiotically believe are too complex not to have a designer and which evolution explains them perfectly well), but the quackery of Dr. Sebi and those like him is not the answer.

      Indeed, every lining has a silver cloud. Sickle cell anemia, as pointed out in the documentary. Another: the prolongation of life versus population explosion.

    18. And you didn't need to see a quack. Just a slight modification. Sometimes our bodies adapt. Look at those who live in rarified climates such as the Himalayas--but sometimes they don't and the results can be fatal, such as with a number of those who visit the inhabitants of rarified climates.

    19. You obviously learned nothing from the documentary and probably didn't want to. Your anecdote means next to nothing, for all we have is your word without evidence.

      In short, you're promoting a quack and that makes you a quack.

    20. How dare you say that those ".. guys are extremely intelligent".
      Where is the scientific evidence for this ?. Where are the results of the peer reviewed clinical trials that prove this ?

      Everybody here knows that if you don't provide solid scientific evidence to support those sorts of claims then you are clearly a nonsense-peddling trouble maker.

      Don't even think about trying to quote normal, everyday type evidence to support your claim because, at best it'll be anecdotal - which is not science & doesn't count.

      And why am I entitled to correct you in this manner ? Because I'm a science graduate of course, you goose !

      And, my friend, while there are also other statements you've made that I do not agree with either, I do agree with the overall thrust of your argument.

    21. Your post is no more than a defense of ignorance.

    22. Unless you can point to specific instances, your comment is nonsensical.

    23. First of all, you mischaracterize Epicurus' response. He did not state that it was definitely placebo and time coincidence, but offered these only as possible explanations. Your distortion of Epicurus' response together with the umbrage taken by you at being ask to substantiate your claims, coupled with your appeal to the "reader with average intelligence, & the ability to think clearly . . . " render your account suspect.

    24. I think Phil Pilgrim99 was taking umbrage at every single statement made on the comments section being challenged, sometimes for the most specious of reasons, and the poster's intelligence questioned.

      Maybe its time for all the regular posters to think before posting and not be quite so quick to be confrontational.

      Ask a probing question or two before drawing negative conclusions.

      Stop and think whether the perceived error in a post is truly due to egregious stupidity--or whether it could possibly be something more benign, such as faulty typing, not being a native English speaker, an awkward attempt to explain a concept the writer is struggling to express for themselves, or any other reason.

      And no, just because someone is struggling to express themselves, it doesn't mean they shouldn't post. How else will they learn?

      Then people wouldn't be quite so quick to feel defensive and reply accordingly. Respect is a two-way street.

    25. Kateye70
      while i agree with everything you stated my first post to him was what i thought were probing questions. i repeated these questions and then gave up when i reached the conclusion (right or wrong) that they were not going to be answered. i even pointed out that the author of this doc stated that chiropractic care could be useful when used in conjunction with conventional care (an olive branch if you will). as for the other "regulars" they are capable of answering for themselves

    26. I have no respect for anyone who takes umbrage at being asked to provide proof of a factual assertion, such as iakhotason and Phil Pilgrim99. I take umbrage at anyone who mischaracterizes or distorts such as Phil Pilgrim 99 and Trevis Robotie.

      If a person cannot express himself clearly, he should not expect others to fathom what his thoughts. If he is misunderstood, in most cases, it's his own fault.

      I see no problem in being confrontational and when a person makes stu*id or ignorant statements (and I don't mean venial errors) or in questioning his intelligence.

    27. No umbrage was taken - it's an issue of time, I'm a very slow typist & had already articulated my position as well as I could to Epicurus who was obviously convinced that he knew better.

      I think if you read all the posts to & from Epicurus - which is what robtallen1 was responding to with the umbrage description - you will see he/she clearly contradicts himself/herself about placebo, and he/she refused to believe my stated biases, insisting that they were the opposite, ie that he/she didn't believe me - which implies he thinks I'm dishonest, or that I don't know my own mind.

      If your reference to " .. the most specious of reasons " has anything to do with my "Unless you can point to specific instances, your comment is nonsensical" quote, I must confess to plagiarizing robtallen1 who's used those exact same words on a number of occasions to other posters in similar circumstances. I was being combative.

      I think you give very good advice here. This is my first time here, I'd like to make a positive contribution & hopefully learn as well. However I am weary of defending myself against incorrect assertions such as that I questioned the posters intelligence, that my statements carry " .. the mark of a fraud & trickster" and so on. I'm not offended, just mildly amused, frustrated, out of time & won't be back.

    28. Let's get this straight. I never made any comments on the placebo effect, only on your expectation of being taken at face value and your strawman corroboration by what you term "the average reader." From your post, it is obvious that you've had to defend yourself before--or is this the first time?

    29. It is true that you never made any comments on the placebo effect, but the subject of your post mentioning umbrage was in response to my post to epicurus regarding placebo.

      My "expectation of being taken at face value is obviously overly ambitious, but please take into account two mitigating factors - one, that I know I never bullshit, and two, that my capacity to tolerate it from those that do, is way below average.

      Now Rob, you misquote me again: "the average reader.". I said
      ".. any other reader with average intelligence, & the ability to think clearly". And if you would like me to respond to the "strawman" point (I know what the strawman strategy is) please elaborate because I do not know what you're talking about.

      Lastly Rob, those feelings you've mentioned you get about suspicious people and statements, strawmen, and concerns about tricksters & fraudsters, how often do you experience these symptoms ?, woops er not symptoms, I mean - events ?

    30. Please note that in one of my earlier posts, I quoted you exactly--and your strawman is " . . . any other reader with average intelligence . . . " In other words, you've created a fiction (or perhaps a nebula) which you've employed to disparage those who refuse to take your anecdote anent your experience with chiropractric at face value. As a matter of fact, considering that I don't know you, I don't even take your self-assessment at face value,

    31. I’ve posted to Epicurus where you’ll find the substance of my case, but here are some clarifications that may be helpful in understanding where I’m coming from, and an indication of my approach.

      It's reasonable that you do not take my self-assessment at face value - for the reason you mention

      If you do not accept the overall anecdote about my experience, at face value, that's also fair & reasonable.

      But, to assume I attempt to demand that you & Epicurus, (& the possible/hypothetical other readers of all, of Epicurus's & my posts to each other) accept my conclusions (about poor comprehension & floored reasoning) on face value, is an error.

      Your assumption is an error because the scientific evidence required to validate the truth of my conclusions is & has been available to you since my: “And no, I'm not going to take the time to substantiate those claims.. “ post to Epicurus, and was available to you without me writing another word.

      This scientific evidence is accessible to the careful, clear thinking reader (of average – a guess i admit - intelligence) from the already written posts – all of which need to be scrutinized together - in their chronological order - to enable collection of all, the pieces of scientific evidence for synthesizing & proposition formulating.

      The scientific evidence can be acquired using two techniques together: Firstly. normal reasoning - using deduction, induction, processes of elimination, making connections across all data fields & levels for information, illuminating inference, imputation & implication, & so on & on …. and Secondly: deploying standard critical thinking methods, of which, identification & analysis of false and, underlying/underpinning, assumptions & agendas is especially productive in this operation.

    32. Trial by fire :) Everyone gets a little hot here from time to time! I make great walloping assertions all the time, think they just got used to me in the end, class clown! ;) Think of yourself as the new kid in school, everyone wants size you up! Stay, and stay amused ;)

    33. Thank you. I was getting a bit hot.

      If I had more time & could type faster, a couple of the schoolyard bullies - whose measure I believe I have - would cop a flogging.

    34. My comments were directed to the old kids on the block, not the new =)

      "And no, just because someone is struggling to express themselves, it doesn't mean they shouldn't post. How else will they learn?" I stand by that remark. I hope to benefit from others' tolerance, also, at times.

      I come here to learn; I've followed topics I might never have, otherwise, and heard opinions I hadn't considered before. This is a valuable site and the community here is valuable, as well. As Dewflirt said, please stay.

    35. There are those who have an allergy to aspirin. It is tragic that a small minority die from this allergy. People also have allergies to peanuts, seafood, strawberries, milk, wheat...etc. I, for some unknown reason, get severe diarrhea when I drink coffee. Should all these products be taken off the market? If one of the patients of your Dr. Sebi dies of aids, despite taking his cure, do you think that he should be sanctioned, maybe even imprisoned? I'm sure he doesn't have a one hundred percent success rate. Your logic is flawed.

      Now, address the longer life span issue. I've asked you once and you've avoided it.

    36. From his website,
      "Dr. Sebis bio mineral packages are used to cleanse the body of mucus, toxins, acids and bacteria. In result ridding the body of any disease. Along with a cleanse his products nourish , revitalize, and rejuvenate the body" 
      Badly written and complete nonsense. Even detox diets do nothing for you but at least they do little harm. This on the other hand is back to the bad old days of humorism and will cause big death type harm!
      'YET to be reported that he has lost a patient'. There is no proven cure for AIDS. If people are using mineral packs to treat themselves, they are going to die.
      Sebis IS a quack. Artists can't be quacks, you are not a quack :) You're making guesses based on YouTube videos, that makes you gullible and dangerous to your own health and that of others. You can't pass doctor exams by watching YouTube!
      33,000 die from aspirin each year. According to WHO, about 388,000 die from drowning each year, worldwide. Swimming has obvious health benefits but in light of that info I suggest that everyone stays well away from water. Wonder if that includes dry drowning?
      No further investigation necessary, if it walks like a duck its a quack.
      No worries about the dead mum thing, you weren't to know, just be mindful that some people are a little more sensitive than I am, I'm also more forgiving than some. You're not in my trouble ok, watch again and listen this time!! Enjoy your day Trevis ;)

    37. And I surely do not want to drink something that will cleanse my body of bacteria. I'd be dead within hours.

    38. It's ok lak, you can have a yakult and make it all better! :)

    39. He probably has a mineral pack that cures death anyway ;)

    40. Ha, Ha, how true, there are 10 times more types of bacteria in the body than there are body cells.

    41. stop giving people advice that could ultimately KILL their loved one....please. have some respect. you are not a doctor and not trained in medicine or biology.

    42. Unfortunately Dewflirt's mother has already passed away, but that doesn't negate your proscription. I think something needs to be placed in the comment policy about giving unqualified medical advice.

    43. In other words, her mother's cancer will be cured through quackery. I think you should be careful about giving out medical advice.

    44. I think I should offer a little advice in return, YouTube is not the place to go for medical help. Also I live in England, health care here is free so no doctor is fleecing anyone.

    45. I concur with others that say it is not up to you to give unqualified medical advice to anyone, any more such advice will be removed. Govern yourself accordingly!

    46. Excellent!

  91. how about a critical thinking analysis of the artificial man made psychological mind game known as currency and the values it promotes?

    1. Well I certainly know that a critical analysis would not begin with any statement such as you just made. I mean it is clear you wish to argue the "artificial man made (sic) mind game known as currency....etc." rather than discuss a critical analysis of anything.

  92. what happens if you apply reason to our socioeconomic system?

    1. good thinking,bro,the FDA sued dr Sebi for curing aids with herbs (and lost).they can't patent the herbs and so to them it means no money....

    2. Dr Sebi is a kook and a snake oil salesmen. enjoy giving your money to that charlatan.

      how about instead you send that money to me and i will send you some mint leaves that cure aids? or how about you buy a bridge off me im selling in new york......?

      gullibility will leave you bankrupt and possibly dead.

    3. Dr. Sebi was a quack like yourself--and don't try to promote your ignorance by attempting to question the motives of the medical industry.

  93. I think all these comments show that we all don't need to start 'Learning to Think Critically' as everyone appears to be quite critical.

    I think the general population is very critical as shown here in the comments. Not often correct with their views though :/

    The videos message is not well created but it creates discussion focused on disagreeing with each other and his video rather than actually promoting science. So I think the video failed, as he delivered a very poor message to the masses that is not productive to his cause.

    It could have been done so much better :(

    Maybe bad PR is why Science has always struggled to gain more visibility.

  94. I dont see canada on the list of countries with dumb kids nor germany or england. (this list is on first video at exactly 5mins) i passed the three questions i didnt know the tilt was just over 23 degrees i knew it was 23.5 from that stupid 23 movie cuz 2+3 =5 ooooooo spooky ( that part made me laugh in the theater ) btw if u haven't watched 23 don't save ur self the 2hrs and go wash ur car or something

  95. Good in parts, although I would have liked to see a distinction made between science and technology. The scientific method is all good but all technology isn't good.

  96. There is nothing to disagree with in this documentary and a lot to learn, especially about the use of evolution in day-to-day science and medicine. But the presentation leaves a lot to be desired. The graphics are boring and I could have read through what the narrator has to say in his monotonous tone in a lot less time. One thing I found annoying was that although the narrator went to great lengths to demonstrate the pitfalls of quote-mining (citing from authority), he ended the section on evolution with an obviously mined quote from Francisco Ayala. While I have the greatest respect for Dr. Ayala and agree with the contents of the quote, the narrator has fallen down his own hole.

  97. can an Ant fathom your existence ? as humans we are not the summit in intelligence. fact is other animals exist that have individual senses that supersede our own, meaning they have something they could teach us. yes we have learned much but the real issue, the only issue that matters is there life after death ?. you hastily blurt out " of course there isn't " congratulations!, everybody watching now knows where the biggest idiot in the room is. not because you clearly don't believe in God, not because you trust in science. it's because you claim to know something so beyond your reach. so much more beyond reach than the Ant with it's little grain of sand sized brain. but it is in this moment we discover which of science's followers are all about the quest for truth or the quest for intellectual praise and awards.

  98. Could someone explain to me why some "rationally thinking" people respond so irrationally when confronted with yet unexplained phenomena, and by irrationally I mean treating the curious as imbeciles? (This is also obviously true the other way round...)
    The whole debate of "science" vs "belief" is just another false dichotomy that only hinders the progress we make in understanding reality.
    Keep an eye on both worlds and eventually they will become one;-)

    1. Yes. It will all be science.

    2. Agreed;-)

    3. Canigetawoohoo
      you asked "explain to me why some "rationally thinking" people respond so irrationally " it could be because they are having a conversation with someone who just had their concerns/questions addressed rationally in a doc and they still display the signs of not understanding why i do not accept their claims. so maybe another approach is warranted. secondly most of the replies are attacking/insulting an idea not the person and if you don't want your ideas laughed at stop having such funny ideas. when you say ""science" vs "belief"" will eventually become one i can think of many of examples where that is not true. i agree if a "belief" concerns the natural world and can be shown to have natural processes and the evidence can be demonstrated and examined critically then it can be accepted as scientific. but many "beliefs" fail that hurdle terribly but remain a belief. or these beliefs fail so miserably that they disappear and are thrown in the wastebasket along with "snake oil" where they belong

  99. The section on chiropractic is amazingly biased for a video titled "Learning to Think Critically". It's so biased as to be downright dishonest. Didn't watch the rest of it. Phil

    1. @Phil Pilgrim99,

      There is zero solid evidence in favor of chiropractic. Given that you know what "evidence" really mean. Period.

    2. Personal testimony is a form of evidence, wouldn't you agree ? and many people including myself testify to its value in treating skeleton problems, and it's definitely not placebo in my case - didn't get the placebo effect when my normal doc tried treating the problem, didn't get a placebo effect when the physiotherapist tried to fix it.

    3. @Phil Pilgrim99,

      "Personal testimony is a form of evidence, wouldn't you agree?"

      Of course not. I can personally testify that I saw a vampire last night. Is that an evidence?

      Scientific method does not take into account subjective claims from an individuals. What you need in this case is a successful test on a large random sample (huge chunk of a diverse population) that can be repeated over and over again with the same results, all over the globe.

      Now who is dishonest? The maker of this video or you? You don't think critically, you are biased.

    4. You're being a bit controversial here Vlatko Look up "evidence" in a dictionary & you'll find something like: includes everything that is used to support, determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

      Your original question to me was about "evidence" & in your reply here you're talking about scientific method - you've substituted "evidence" with "scientific method" - they are not the same.

      Evidence is not proof & has more sources than just results from application of scientific method. However I do agree that properly applied scientific method is, on the whole, the best quality evidence.

    5. @Phil Pilgrim99,

      The dictionary gives you the broad dentition of the word. For example "theory" is not the same when used in our every day life (the dictionary) and when used in scientific context.

      Scientific evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method.

    6. Vladtko... only one very persistent problem: the placebo effect does have as good results as many approved drugs and treatments, and those treatments are regarded as the causation of the healing. This is really problematic for medical science but the placebo effect is completely dismissed. My point is that the discipline of Medical Science is completely apathetic to the placebo effect only using placebos to make a show or as a control. I just want to know WHY is it that placebos sometimes show real efficacy? That is the study I'd like to see but I doubt that will ever happen in the very narrow field of medical science. Just my two cents ; )

    7. @CapnCanard,

      That is not the problem. Placebo is also shown to work half of the time on a large diverse sample group, not because a few crackpots say so.

      The origin of the argument was if chiropractic works or not. He is offering his testimony (anecdote) as evidence, while the counter argument is that that is not an evidence, at least not in scientific sense.

    8. My question was only concerning placebo not the discussion you had already had. My apologies. But I am interested in WHY a placebo works(I'd bet there are no docs on that!!). The problem is that it has never been seriously investigated and if it is then it is immediately castigated because it doesn't fit the current paradigm of belief. Just sayin'

    9. CapnCanard
      i am by no means an expert on this subject so take this for what it is worth but a lot of times there are chemicals released when an emotion is felt. so a person could "feel" better because endorphins are released and if they believe they are being treated along with the reassurance and attention a person might get along with the placebo could lower stress leading to beneficial results. a doc i enjoyed that touches on these ideas is "Derren Brown: Miracles for Sale" right here at TDF

    10. @CapnCanard,

      Placebo is an extremely interesting phenomenon and I don't have a clue why it works. But it is proven to work. The effects are visible not only with giving placebo drugs, but sometimes only with placebo suggestions.

      For example let say I monitor two groups of people who do the exact same job every day. I tell to the first group that they're getting a good workout at their job, and to the second group I tell nothing.

      The first group just by "thinking" that they exercise every day, will show a significant decrease in weight, blood pressure and body fat after four weeks. The second group will show zero changes.

      Probably the mind/brain can "convince" the body that it is in a "certain" situation. According to that, the body adjusts the production and levels of enzymes, peptides, hormones, etc. which leads to the desired situation.

    11. what is the constant percentage that placebo works?

      also:

      The United Kingdom Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology has stated that: "...prescribing placebos... usually relies on some degree of patient deception" and "prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS."

      that seems like a good reason not to rely on placebo as medication.

    12. Now, what did the documentary have to say about anecdotes?

    13. clearly you dont understand placebo either.

    14. well, would you be kind enough to enlighten me ?

  100. I just had a DTaP injection a few weeks ago. Proud of it. Diptheria can kill you by forming a membrane over your throat causing you to not be able to breathe. Tetanus is in dirt, and is also known as "lockjaw" because it often targets the muscles of the jaw. Pertussis is also known as "whooping cough" because of the sound of the cough you get as a symptom of the disease. You should get a DTap vaccine; if you fell in a filthy creek that over flowed, and flooded part of this little town I live in with a wheat stubble field, which consists of dirt, agricultural chemicals, possibly animal waste, and wheat straw. In this State of Oregon, children are required to have DTaP vaccines administered to be in 6th to 12 grades of school. Vaccines are important. You should get them.

    Do you know Hepatitis B can live in dried blood on a surface for a week? Think about that, when you think vaccines are unsafe. Okay?
    Further, there are no "chips" being put in you with your yearly influenza vaccination as I know having giving 1000's of them to clients over the past 25 years.

    Science is theory that has been tested and proven to have the same results under the same circumstances time after time. That's awesome and the real world, baby.

  101. 97% eh? And this 97% is made up mostly of individuals who are not climate scientists themselves, but people in other fields like Biology (Suzuki for example). THAT is critical thinking, knowing that the AGW agenda of the IPCC was made up largely of scientists who were not themselves learned in climate.

    Plenty of people in the camp of AGW often stated that storm events like that seen with Hurricane Katrina would progressively get worse. Thing is, since then, many of the storms have themselves not gotten any worse. Year after year, the predictions of doom and gloom have yet to show themselves. Climate models are only as good as the data fed into them.

    Much of the AGW agenda tells us that CO2 concentrations are the cause, yet historically, CO2 concentration increases have always followed a warming trend, not the other way around.

    Science is only fallible if the data on a particular subject is flawed somewhere in the progress of any that research. New discoveries can change past knowledge...everyone at one time fully believed the earth was the center of the universe based partially on religious dogma and some on scientific conjecture...then someone came along and "corrected" that belief, primarily showing that sometimes we do not have all the data we need to actually prove something.

    We would not have discovered the atom without previous research that led to it. We would not have went into space without the previous research that led to it. Understanding in these quantifiable sciences would never have come to pass if preceding science had flawed assumptions somewhere in the building blocks of a particular part of the whole.

    Climatologists themselves can barely predict weather beyond a couple weeks, and even then, they are sometimes wrong and have to adjust their models for the accuracy we see for a week, and yet there are people who take stock in the long term predictions of a group of scientists who do not have the credentials to call themselves climatologists.

    Nay, what I see from the AGW crowd is NOT critical thinking. What I see is lemmings being led to the slaughter.

  102. What I remember about science in my youth, was taught to me by Ice-T the rapper. He summed up all I needed to know, all WE needed to know with one lyrical stroke of wisdom.
    Liquid solid gas we'll be kickin a*s!

  103. I love it!
    I'm just as foolish...
    Thats why I come here!

    P.S. I was talking about some esp experiment done with a "meter machine" that "read" the ~esp emotion~ of a cities population, where the machine was stationed; london, san fran etc.

    Anyone know what the project name/doc was?

  104. Great! Thank you!

  105. Science is important but this guy is blinded by not thinking outside the 'science' box, he actually has made it rather boring.

    He might have well just said, "We need to be more aware of science". Shown some interesting discoveries and how they have helped the world, backed up by statistical concerns that most people don't know enough. Then made his point of increasing awareness.

    The fact he supports Al Gore and his profit gains from carbon credits is silly and shows he is blinded as much as most.

    It's as if he wants to promote Science by making people feel stupid. When he just ends up looking stupid and frustrating people.

    Science has one important factor, nothing is ever proven for good, only within our current understanding we generally agree on x or y.
    Not x or y is FACT and people are stupid for not knowing this.

    1. @Innovation Blues,

      You don't need Al Gore. 97% of the scientist agree that man-made climate change is real. And it is indeed. Maybe it is tiny in the context of major non man-made climate cataclysms that happened over time, but it is real.

      You say nothing is ever proven for good. I say thousands of things are proven for good. You have 23 pairs of chromosomes and no matter how our current understanding changes, you'll still have the same number of chromosomes.

      Only few things in science are generally agreed on x or y, and with a solid reason to do so. The majority of the scientific work is hard core, observed, tested, measured, and/or mathematically proven facts.

  106. This is an add by and for the medical field... ummmm yes .

  107. I'm very torn about this video, I must say. I agree completely that it is important for people to have a good understanding of science and reason and that critical thinking is vital to this pursuit, but the video's author seems to accept science as an unqualified good in and of itself. This thinking is as dangerous as complete scientific ignorance in my opinion, perhaps moreso because no number of uneducated people will ever cook up something as terrifying as a hydrogen bomb, but uncounted technological horrors have poured forth from the entirely rational minds of often well-meaning people.

    This is not to say that all scientific research and reasoned inquiry should be abandoned, but it is to say that we shouldn't replace worship of supernatural and paranormal forces with a complete embrace of pure logic, which can be every bit as destructive as pure illogic. Where I and the author of this vid agree is that one answer is for everyone to be more knowledgeable about both the good and bad sides of science. Science has brought us both indoor lighting and the electric chair, both nuclear power and nuclear annihilation, cures for diseases as well as designer viruses, wonderful advances and terrible weapons. Science is morally neutral and in itself unconcerned with the results of discoveries made in its name. It is up to us to use the power it gives us responsibly. I'm not religious at all, but I feel I am a moral person, and as such I must keep in mind that logic is a double-edged blade that has been used to justify terrible injustices and crimes even as it has uplifted humanity from the mire of ignorance it lived in for millenia.

    1. @JaniMyshtari:

      I disagree, science SHOULD replace all forms of any type of supernatural, religious, paranormal worship, in that regard logic should always prevail, the majority of people are dumbed down enough already by the religious majority. Every sentient being in the universe knows right from wrong.

    2. JaniMyshtari
      science is neither good or bad. it is a methodology that provides the most consistently reliable explanations for the natural world. it provides tools and information that is all. how that information or tools are used is not what science concerns itself with. now if you have said that there have been scientists and others that have used these things for bad reasons i would agree completely.

  108. I can no longer watch this video. For claiming to be a "scientific" and therefore objective observer, this guy really hasn't done his research. I agree that most people in the world could use a brush up or two on some of the currently accepted scientific theories of our age, and that education should be a gigantic worldwide priority...but you cannot presume to throw all new or non-proven theories into the category of "lore". ESP, Clairvoyance, psychic phenomena...these are things that even the grandfather of modern psychology Carl Jung accepted, observed, experienced and documented. Though we do not have complete explanations (probably because our current view of science is flawed), there is a surprising amount of evidence to suggest that these events do happen.

    Natural Medicine is in no way a pseudo science and if you ask me, it is often MORE reliable than our modern "medical" science that has only been around a mere two hundred years or so. Though the information coming from anyone's lips may be flawed, a little research goes a long way. Onion's are well known for thousands of years to posses the ability to draw poison from the body when placed on the skin and I've personally used them to draw fever and bug bite infection. Just because something natural isn't as instant or as powerful as modern prescriptions certainly doesn't mean it's false. Millions die as a result of our modern medicine every year...while simple inventions such as vaccines and soap has eliminated the risk of contracting viruses, through "modern science" we've managed to exponentially increase chronic illness...

    No matter what you think about all of that, critical thinking is doing your own thinking, not accepting the thinking of others as fact, even scientists...you must learn to question everything and do the logic in your own brain. And actually once you begin to think critically you find that much of our modern science isn't necessarily based on anything objective.

    1. @Miikalyn,

      ESP, Clairvoyance, psychic phenomena... there is a surprising amount of evidence to suggest that these events do happen.

      Could you please show us the evidence.

    2. Miikalyn
      you state "but you cannot presume to throw all new or non-proven theories into the category of "lore". ESP, Clairvoyance, psychic phenomena" why not? not only are these things not proven they also are in conflict with many things we do know. anyone is welcome to apply the scientific method to these claims and do the work and provide the results. until that time why should science or any rational person accept these things? and your appeal to authority with "these are things that even the grandfather of modern psychology Carl Jung accepted". first what repeatable tests did he develop and please show the peer reviewed results of his conclusions. i can name many brilliant people who believed strange things (newton studied alchemy). having one idea proven does not make all their ideas right. "Natural Medicine is in no way a pseudo science" again do you have impartial peer reviewed ,repeatable evidence for that claim? your definition of critical thinking is flawed in my opinion. i would define it as simply letting the facts and evidence that are most reliable and demonstrable reach the conclusions for you regardless of personal,social or popular views.

    3. " . . . having one idea proven does not make all their ideas right." I like that. So much for quotes from authority.

  109. I was into it until the vaccinations. Denial sir. Vaccinations=$$$ and a soft kill!!

    1. I am old enough to remember the horror of polio, a disease for which there is no cure. When I was in primary school, a vaccination program began in which all children were vaccinated against polio. In a few short years, polio became a thing of the past and is now eliminated all around the world...except in countries where people, like you, who believe that vaccinations are a method employed by western interests to eliminate them. Their children still live under the threat of this terrible disease.

      Just because someone is making money off it, doesn't mean the science behind it isn't valid. Scientific principles also provided the means to create the computer hardware and software that allowed you to make such an uninformed statement over the internet. There are those who have become exceedingly rich in the computer industry. They make money and yet your computer works. Strange.

      You are allowing the message of the film to be obscured by your own personal biases and ideas. Scientists are human and are prone to error and self interest. If your idea is valid, use critical thinking or the scientific method to demonstrate why it is. Crying B.S. and money talks proves absolutely nothing. Show an incidence where you can be proven to be correct. Provide facts and data that support your claim. That is what this film is telling you to do. You won't though. If you do respond it will be to tell me that I'm brainwashed.

    2. I only took one polio vaccine..the sugar cube loaded with the vaccine. They came to our school and passed it out to all the students. I and ten other kids got sick. Upset stomach, fever, vomiting. We were off school for several weeks. Tests confirmed that the small group of students that I belonged to was allergic to the vaccine so, we did not get the shots. This is one of the problems, especially with medical science and many health practitioners [ and politicians ] that all people are the same and therefore, every generalized 'fix' will cure whatever is the 'problem' is at any given time.

    3. Anecdotes are not evidence. Didn't you watch the documentary.

    4. I guess I'll have to get in contact with all those grads and inform them that robertallen1 says they are nothing but anecdotes. Or...maybe we should have just left the scientist grads to fend for themselves without interrupting their quest for knowledge..

      Gravity is just an anecdote based on a story about an apple and hundreds of people and things falling towards a large body...

    5. First of all, the sampling is too small to make any valid determination. Secondly, as stated several times, anecdotes have no weight in science--I guess you didn't take the documentary seriously.

      Gravity has nothing to do with statistics. Therefore, your analogy is patently invalid and I can't believe you're serious.

    6. The study of gravity began with anecdotal evidence, IE, the apple falling... People falling from heights is also anecdotal 'evidence' that something is occurring. Unless you are saying that someone falling off a roof is not the result of any cause and effect.

    7. No, it began with firsthand experience, not anecdotal evidence. Won't wash.

    8. That's funny. Someone tells you they saw someone fall off a roof and you tell them that it is not viable. Sort of like calling 911 and reporting that you saw someone fall and the operator saying they will have to wait until the person that fell calls in otherwise, the report is just anecdotal.....

    9. You've obviously missed the point of the section of the documentary dealing with anecdotal evidence. Calling the police to report a crime in progress or a man down is not the same as stating that Medicine Z cured me of cancer.

    10. What you say is true but it does not prove that anecdotal evidence is not true......

    11. dufas_duck
      there are too many claims that can possibly be true critical thinking skills allow us to focus on what is probably true.

    12. I never said one way or the other. It's just the weakest form.

    13. dufas_duck
      no no no. more on topic if i call 911 and say someone fell and when they show up there is no person who fell and no physical evidence that supports the claim i am charged with making a false claim. so if you cannot back up a claim with actual evidence you are making a false claim

    14. Not quite. If I report a prowler and by the time the police come out, the prowler has gone, I cannot support my claim with evidence, but in all probability it is not a false claim. Perhaps the operative way of putting it is making a knowingly false claim. One way or the other, dufas_duck is attempting to equate an observation with anecdotal evidence as the term is used in the documentary which from his previous posts, I doubt if he takes seriously.

    15. If you'd said anecdotes are not PROOF, I'd agree with you.
      Testimonial is not proof either, but it is evidence, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

    16. Notice when a product that doesn't work is being marketed they ALWAYS resort to a bunch of random testimonials? like the Q-ring bracelet, or any other as seen on tv magic cure.

      Anecdotal evidence can have varying degrees of formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence is called a case report, which is a more formalized type of evidence subjected to peer review. Although such evidence is not seen as conclusive, it is sometimes regarded as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question. For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of side effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."
      Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information. Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.

    17. Your reply was perfect. It couldn't be any clearer than that.

    18. The study of genetics proves that there are no two people exactly alike. There is no question. Therefore, it is to be expected that some would have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. However, it would seem that the vaccine did work. It has been completely eliminated in the western world. They were not going to abandon the vaccine because a small minority may become ill from it. How do you explain to the subsequent millions who contract the disease that they have the way to eliminate the disease but they refuse to implement the program because dufas_duck might become ill. They did it because it was the only option open to them. It may even be possible that the vaccine prevented your contracting polio in an indirect manner. The vaccine virtually eliminated any chance that you would be exposed to the disease. No exposure...no disease.

      The human body is incredibly complex and everyone is different. We do not know enough to tailor make cures to a specific individual. We can only go by what works for the greater population and hope for the best. It would be ridiculous to stop helping the many because we are unable to help the few.

    19. I wouldn't suggest that we stop helping the general population. That would be insane. It is possible that the one vaccine helped but one was supposed to take a full battery for it to be effective,[according to the knowledge at that time].. My father got polio in 1948, several years before I took the vaccine. I was given the vaccine in 1955 and since the vaccine was still in the trial stage, I don't know if it was a placebo or not. Now, I am going to make an assumption, [awful me]. Since I and the others became ill after taking the vaccine, I assume that it was the real thing as I doubt a placebo would produce the ill effects displayed by myself and the others. My dad, although he spent a couple of years in an iron lung, became gradually better. He lived for years with the right side of his body paralyzed, but this appeared to be diminishing. With intensive therapy and a determination on his part, he could walk and talk again. By the mid 60s, the only visible clue that he had ever had polio was that his right arm was noticeably smaller than his left.

      The point of the post was that although science seeks the truth, many times, it is not an all encompassing truth that is realized just as the police detective that has evidence that a certain person has committed a crime and later finds that the evidence was wrong or planted, [which has happened but again, that would be anecdotal...]

    20. A vaccine is not a placebo. A placebo does not eradicate a disease from western culture is less that a generation. No placebo is that good.

    21. I know a vaccine is not a placebo. The group that I was included in were given placebos. I don't know if I was given a placebo or not. Since I had an allergic reaction just as some others did, I suspect it was the real thing. Since the vaccine added a slight sour taste to the sugar cubes, a sour flavoring was added to the placebos to camouflage them. Names were not used, only numbers and the team of doctors are the only people that had a name/number reference. I could have been allergic to the flavoring agent they used on the placebos. I was never told one way or the other...

    22. As a matter of fact the vaccinations for polio were implemented after it was already in decline. It was introduced after the peak of the bell curve and took the credit for the human immune system. I could gather the data together for you, but many others have already done so, and done it better than I could. Look into the timing of the vaccine beside the number of infected, and you will see strong evidence showing that the vaccine really wasn't responsible. There is your evidence. Like you said also where is the polio now? Not all places had the vaccine, yet don't suffer large polio outbursts.

    23. So you're saying that the Salk vaccine was pretty much useless. Now, what is your source and what is the extent of your medical background?

    24. Yes that is exactly what I am asserting. I have posted a link which awaits moderation. You can judge for yourself. This is true from what I have seen and know to be true. I have no stake in proving anything to you though. You are a broken record, around and around.

    25. From what you've seen? Just what have you seen and how does it constitute double-blind medical testing? And while we're at it, how do you KNOW this is TRUE? Is that why you write "I have no stake in proving anything to you though?"

  110. In the first episode the narrator includes common law as lore. I really do not understand common law being classified as lore.

  111. isn't it easier to control the 'unknowing',the'scientific illiterate' & the 'pseudo
    -scientific airheads'?researching how the general schooling-system has been
    'infiltrated' maybe a start for anyone interested?!

  112. the test in the first part and the sheer number of people who manage to get so many things wrong scares me terribly.

  113. What do you mean, "...witches of all things..."? Witches are practitioners of the religion of Wicca. I see no benefit in alienating people of any given religion or philosophy by expressing incredulity regarding their beliefs. Otherwise, I enjoyed this preview.

  114. One thing that is overlooked about "science", is how credible are the scientists.
    Scientists are susceptible not only to pseudoscience, but money and greed as much as any other profession. The critical thinker not only needs to look at the data, but at the source and motivation behind it. If this is not done independently, science (scientific community) can become the new source of lore.
    Different types of science have different levels of credibility, medicine is a highly profitable industry, not an area of idealistic scientific study as we are led believe. It is filled with propaganda, and fear mongering, with lobbyists out to promote their profit minded employers. You don't see scientists promoting evolution or the big bang theory so engaged...don't let pseudoscience or lore labeled as science cloud YOUR vision.

    1. Bu..bu...but theres a scientific consensus that human carbon emissions are heating up the earth and the only way to fix it is to tax everyone so i can get rich..er...i mean save the planet.....ya thats it....

    2. Al Gore
      you are partially right. yes there is a consensus that climate change is happening. they have strong evidence as to what are some of the things that may be causing the change. but science in no way states that a tax will fix it. that is a proposal that is put forward by businesses, think tanks,governments and so on. and yes some of those people contained within these groups are scientists. but as you made the statement and did not say it was only an opinion you can show the proof that a carbon tax is the only way to fix it is a scientific consensus right?

    3. Those who study medicine are not always motivated by greed alone. That is a blanket assessment and is unfair. If I develop a cure for MS that has been proven, without a doubt, to work, does it matter if I might eventually profit from my discovery. It is one thing to suspect that someone may be a charlatan but it is another to throw out all medical research due to the possibility that charlatans exist.

      People in western, industrialized countries live longer and healthier than ever before. This is due to better diets and life styles but also better excess to health care. Heart surgery was once a major operation and most people who had undergone heart surgery would live under the impression that their days were numbered and that the surgery just postponed the inevitable. Today, patients are in and out of surgery in just a few days and back to work within weeks. They expect a long and productive future. Unheard of forty years ago. This is due to medical research. I am sure that there are those who became rich due to these procedures but do we really want to go back forty years because some one made a lot of money. You are welcome to go back. I'm staying.

    4. i garantee you that they are always motivated by greed.....if you know from the word go,that organic cures the organic(Socrates,the father of modern medicine,did not use chemicals to cure),why then would you insist on hybrid,acid based drugs???they can't brand nature as theirs,therefore the way to make megabucks is cook up poisons in the lab.they know their method is wrong and has always been but,they just don't care about people

    5. Let me put it this way, you give one more piece of medical advice such as you gave to Dewflirt and I will report the matter to the moderators. This is clearly unawarranted and dangerous.

    6. All three moderators are on the conversation.
      1i

    7. The father of modern medicine is Hippocrates, not Socrates. Although Dr. William Osler has also been given that title. The misinformed should not be giving out medical advice.

      Organic is always a good thing, huh? Well, poison ivy is organic, too.

      You seem to think that curing complex diseases is a simple matter of eating the right plants. Why is it, then, that the life spans of the citizens of the western world has risen consistently since the application of the scientific method has been invoked? We live longer and healthier.

      Death is not the ultimate failure of modern medicine. We are all on that inexorable rendezvous with our demise. Modern medicine attempts to postpone it and tries to make that life healthier and more enjoyable. Failure, on an individual basis, is not an indicator of failure on the larger scale and the ugly spectre of greed by some does not negate the fact that we live longer and healthier. The life span issue is the one thing that people like you never address.

    8. yeah ya ryt!amnesia

    9. You forgot to mention that women don't die in childbirth so often, and their babies tend to survive birth and childhood more frequently.

    10. Another excellent example of the benefits of modern medicine. It is also another example of subjects that the anti modern medicine people refuse to discuss. I have on many occasions try to engage them in discussions about longer life spans and declining child mortality rates but have been met with silence. I expect this trend to continue.

    11. Yes medicine has given us longer life spans and declining child mortality rates yet our rate of population growth continues to fall and that growth includes immigration both legal and illegal. Take away immigration and the rate of growth doesn't even reach the replacement level and hasn't since 1972! This leads one to suspect that maybe medicine has also taken away the incentive to hedge our bets in that we now do not need a large number of children to assure our genes are passed forward.

    12. Another statistical claim. From where are you getting this information?

    13. I will answer your question without trying to determine what you're really asking (which is also another of your RobertAllen rules). The place WHERE I got my information is the US Census Bureau.

    14. Thank you. You could have stated that in the first place.

    15. Didn't think it was necessary since it has been a known and universally accepted fact for the last 40 years by demographers. That falls under the RobertAllen "I don't need to give a source" rule.

    16. Then why didn't you state this instead of making a baldfaced assertion--yes, it is necessary. You still haven't grasped the difference between a statistical and a non-statistical claim--and you probably don't want to.

    17. Or maybe you should quit trying to impose rules and let others discuss the way they choose to discuss. I think that would alleviate most of the problem.

      Good night.

    18. I will comment when and if I choose. Whether you like it or not, this is a public forum.

    19. Robert

      Just came by this link and your series of posts. What's your point?
      - To understand or reduce the other (lakhotason) or ..... what? The author in the preceding blurb makes a quite relevant observation - we need to reach out with reason to the unreasonable.
      - So where do you sit on this one?

    20. So your idea of reason is baldfaced statements with nothing behind them.

    21. I agree completely, but that's not to say alternative medicines still don't have their own place. A lot of modern medical science relies heavily on the knowledge of the past. Especially when drugs are concerned. Many of the drugs were taken from the indigenous peoples of North and South America. The drug used for heart surgery today is based of curare which has been used for centuries. I agree completely about the life span increase and everything though. I often point to that when people say the world is falling apart or getting worse and what not.

    22. Which "alternative medicines" are these?

    23. Do you actually want examples or do you just want to attack me some more? Honestly why would anyone ever have a conversation with you, it's impossible. I would love to have a stimulating debate, but you are intent on attacking character. I don't feel like being a part of my own abuse by you, so no I will not give examples. For every proof I will find the internet will have a counter point. I don't care if you believe, but I have pointed out that many successful alternative medicines are now in modern science. There was a time when washing your hands before childbirth was considered "alternative medicine". Not until germ theory was discovered did it become widespread. So there's an example in history for you, but that's the only one I'll give. Peace, and may your future conversations contain some respect.

    24. " . . . but that's not to say alternative medicines still don't have their own place." The question was which "alternative medicines" still have their place, not which procedures or pharmaceuticals which were once considered alternative medicines have now become part of mainstream medicine.

      You make assertions without background, without evidence and resent being asked for them. As such you deserve no respect.

      .

    25. I am pointing out that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
      it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

    26. Non-resopnsive. You wrote, " . . . but that's not to say alternative medicines still don't have their own place." Now which medicaments which are currently considered current "alternative" have their place in mainstream medicine?

    27. I already said I wasn't a doctor. Also how can you refute my claims if you are not a doctor. What makes your refutation of my points any more relevant than my points, if you yourself are not a doctor? Did you ever think about that. How would a layman prove a layman wrong on something neither of them are versed at?

    28. I haven't refuted anything except your ability to assess medical material. I am simply demanding that you back up your claims.

    29. I have already told you, no. I won't, I have nothing to prove to you, and I have a feeling it's like trying to tell a religious person there is no God, you will reject anything I have to say. I could provide a mountain of evidence, and I could see you easily refuting everything. " I am simply demanding that you back up your claims." Demand away, that is all you are good at.

    30. "I could provide a mountain of evidence"--but. This is simply an admission that you have nothing to back them up with.

    31. Google is your friend.

    32. Once again, sending someone on a fishing expedition through the internet doesn't provide the sources you used to support your claims pursuant to your obligation to meet your burden of proof.

    33. curare heart surgery. Try the first link...... Have you even tryed fishing? The internet ocean is abundant.

    34. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Why don't you try asking instead of demanding? I find this yields better results with people.

    35. Also I wont give you a modern example because it is likely still in the first stage of truth, and I don't care if you believe or not. Your statement here just proves my point, that you don't have a point. You just attack content but have none of your own. Also everyone deserves some respect, even you.

    36. Well, this says a lot about the substance of your claim " . . . but that's not to say alternative medicines still don't have their own place." You'll get no respect from this corner.

    37. What corner? I see no point.

    38. I replied to null eh? Way to delete your comments, makes sense though that you would. I understand completely Robertallen1.

    39. Yes it's a very good thing that germ theory was discovered, but can you really attribute that to doctors? I agree about the scientific method helping, but I think a lot of the other fields of science tend to kick start the medical profession. Another few examples would be x-rays and MRI's. Most of these innovations are actually made by other sciences and then adopted by the medical fields. I'm not saying medical science doesn't have it's place, but seriously in the States it is about the money. You are paid more for less care, simple as that.

    40. " . . . but seriously in the States it is about the money. You are paid more for less care, simple as that." Source? Evidence? Medical qualifications?

    41. Watch sicko, a very good documentary about the subject. Other than that they have health insurance. How is it not about the money, I could very well ask you. Source? Evidence? Medical qualifications?

    42. As I have asserted nothing except for your medical incompetence and ignorance, the burden of proof is not on me. "How is it not about the money?" is not anything approaching an answer. However, you have finally provided a source which I will look into.

    43. Why don't you just ever respectfully disagree. This is a discussion, not a war. Can you lay off some of those words like, incompetence, and ignorance? Personal attack is not necessary.

    44. I can't "respectfully disagree" with someone who by his own admission is medically incompetent and yet makes unsubstantiated medical claim and after unsubstantiated medical claim and then resents being asked for substantiation.

    45. I am not medically incompetent. You don't have to be a mechanic to fix a car, or know some basics like changing your oil. Why is it so black and white with you? Also I am not resenting anything, I am simply asking you debate the content not the character. Is that really so much to ask?

    46. "I am not medically incompetent." I don't see M.D. or similar degree after your name. I don't see any evidence of a medical background. So your claim is false.
      And I'm demanding that you provide the sources of your content which you obviously resent doing and I can see only one reason why.
      P.S. Are you claiming that it doesn't take a trained auto mechanic to replace a transmission or fix a head gasket?

    47. Yes I am, I know many people that are not trained mechanics that can do just that. I suppose now you want evidence? Just check out youtube, they are out there. Again google is your friend. And yes that is exactly what I am claiming.

    48. Being able to do that means that they've been trained in mechanics. You don't pick up that skill out of the blue.
      And I assume that you also know many people not trained in medicine who can make competent diagnoses and perform surgery.

    49. It's called being a farmer and just picking up skills over time. They haven't been trained, rather they were self taught. Don't presume to know anything about my friends.

    50. They had to go by something and someone.
      One way or the other, are you trying to apply auto mechanics to medicine, i.e., are you saying that there are people with no medical training who are competent medical doctors?

    51. I can perform CPR and the Heimlich. I would say that puts me above the incompetence level. I find your opinions rather offensive, to be honest. Why incompetence? Seriously can't we all get along?

    52. Do you have medical certificates attesting to your competence to perform these procedures or is this merely self-aggrandizement? And even if you do, what makes you think that you have the competence to assess medical procedures and articles?

    53. ..... Yes actually I had some basic medical training in the past, but my certification has expired. But to be honest, they teach the Heimlich in elementary school too. It's not rocket science.

    54. To continue with you automotive analogy changing a tire is not tantamount to rebuilding a transmission. And having some "basic medical training" does not qualify you to make a valid medical assessment.

    55. Yes, we can stick with the analogy, it just proves my point. If you can change a tire you are not mechanically incompetent. If you have absolutely zero automotive skills I would consider you incompetent. Changing a tire involves many things. Jacking up the vehicle. Knowing what way to turn the lug nuts etc. There are many guys working at tire shops that would consider being called mechanically incompetent an insult, just because they can't rebuild a tranny.

    56. A phlebotomoist is not competent to do anything in the medical field except draw blood. Ambulance personnel are not competent to do anything in the medical field except render emergency treatment and drive the patient to the hospital. So much for your tire shop employee.

    57. So you just said that both of those people were competent in certain medical fields. My analogy holds. So yes I would not consider ambulance personnel "medically incompetent".

    58. They are not competent to assess the efficacy of vaccination as you consider yourself to be despite the almost complete lack of medical training.

    59. Never said they were. It has always been you asserting this. I just said that medical incompetence is a blanket term, which you have used incorrectly. The ambulance driver is not "medically incompetent" however he is no surgeon, or whatever other expert you want to mention. You are just mis-using the language that's all. I think if you look up the definition of medical, you will see that these people are not "medically incompetent". Also I just know what I won't put into my body. I know what is in vaccines and have read the product monograph. Have you?

    60. "Also I just know what I won't put into my body." As if this says anything. I too have read product monographs, but I don't claim to have the expertise to assess them and quite frankly neither do you. That's why when I wish for an elucidation, I ask my mainstream medical doctor.

    61. Yes I have a great comprehension of the English language. I don't know about you, but higher rates of miscarriage probably means the same thing to a doctor as it does to me.

    62. Are you placing yourself on the same level as a mainstream M.D. with years of education, training and experience? Perhaps this is just another of your groundless conjectures.

    63. No I am not, I am just saying that some things can be understood by both doctors and other people as well. Do you think that the monograph was edited by a doctor? No it was done by someone who knows sentence structure better, and put together the monograph based on what the doctors were telling them. Also yes I happen to know what side effects are, and am totally capable of googling the ones I don't. Does every citizen need a Doctorate degree to know what the side effects of their medication is? Or is it on the side of the bottle, or on the ad?

    64. How do you know this about medical monographs? One way or the other, the doctor reads the final draft and has the final say.
      Every citizen certainly needs medical education, training and experience to properly assess the side effects of medications, especially with respect to individual patients. .

    65. I requested a monograph. They have to send you one if you ask for it. I suggest anyone getting a vaccination to do the same. To use an analogy, you don't have to be a mechanic to know reading your user manual for your car is a good thing.

    66. The user manual consists mostly of a description of features and a set of instructions, hardly enough for even a journeyman mechanic. A bottle of medicine contains the medicine, a list of ingredients, instructions for its use and a list of potential side effects. That's it. Once again, you need a medical education, training and experience to properly assess the entire situation, especially as it pertains to you, the patient or the user.

    67. Yes that is what the product monograph contains too. Have you ever read one? That is a yes or no question by the way. You claim I avoid things but you rarely answer any of my questions.

    68. Yes, I have. Now how about re-reading my last sentence.

    69. Ok so you read, one. Why would you do that? You are no doctor. You must have understood nothing in it. So why did you bother reading one?

    70. I understood them as far as my lay knowledge can take me--and you can do no more either.

    71. Sorry I see you are asking how I know doctors didn't edit the monograph. It's obvious various lawyers and editors looked over it. Big business is involved, it would be naive to think that doctors had the final say.

    72. You don't know this. You're only surmising. Hence, you've posted another series of worthless statements.

    73. Have you ever read a product monograph? Yes or no.

    74. Another way of putting it is, we live in a society of specialists. Doctors let lawyers and editors do their job, and they let doctors do theirs.

    75. I never said that modern medicine is useless. I embrace and love all medicine, I just think that there is a system based on money in the States, and it leads to less care. The proof is in the pudding though. The fact that Cuba has a higher average lifespan speaks worlds. h tt p: //en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

    76. Good. You've learned to provide your source. Now, all you have to do is establish that our capitalistic system leads to less care--i.e., the correlation between shorter lifespan and money--and while you're at it, in your assessment, I suggest that you take PMO's and HMO's into account.

    77. I didn't learn to. It is just for you since you seem to not know a lot of these basic things, and can't google simple stats. Again common knowledge really doesn't have to be linked but since you are "demanding" it, I will link things for you.

    78. Also it wasn't my point that you be an expert in the field just competent. Which you claim everyone who is not trained is incompetent. A bold claim which is provably false. Maybe next time I'll tell my friend to video tape himself, just so you can see it done.

    79. To see what done?
      Now how can someone be medically competent without medical training?

    80. Well they researched themselves on how to do techniques and self taught themselves. It is not impossible, nor unheard of.

    81. So you don't need to go to medical school to learn how to be a heart or brain surgeon or achieve competence the the various areas of medical specialization; you can somehow teach yourself.

      If it's not unheard of, let's see your evidence--but I forgot you expect others to do your verification for you.

    82. I was just referring to the Heimlich and CPR, stop putting words in my mouth.

    83. "I can perform CPR and the Heimlich. I would say that puts me above the
      incompetence level." Once again, it does not render you competent to assess a medical article.

    84. Also I am just asserting that someone that knows some basic medical procedures is not incompetent.

    85. Obviously you know little about engines, or you wouldn't think a head gasket or a tranny job is that hard. Now designing the engine or tranny on the other hand.

    86. For instance, instead of saying what are your qualifications, why not say "I have not seen this to be true, and would like to see where you are getting this information from" or "There are no alternative medicines currently existing to my knowledge that are beneficial". Same effect less hate.

    87. First of all, you have no business telling me how to phrase just as you have no business telling medical professionals what they should or should not be doing. Secondly, I'm not going to soft-pedal this. You make claims without substantiation and you're going to be called on it, plain and simple.

    88. First of all you have no business demanding sources from me. Second, you have no ability to google anything at all. I googled some of the things I said here and found immediate info on the subjects. If I am medically incompetent, you are internet search incompetent.

    89. "First of all you have no business demanding sources from me." This says everything about your unsubstantiated claims and expecting people to research them says a lot about you--none of it good.

    90. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. Go do some research and learn something new.

    91. Non-responsive.

    92. Also I find your caveman banter somewhat entertaining. Grunting out words like "source, evidence". Are you capable of forming sentences with complex meaning or just attacking content, because I haven't seen a single point you have added to this discussion, period. What is your point? You never seem to have one, but you sure are good at trying to discredit others points though.

    93. Once again, you are the one asserting, not I, and hence the burden of proof lies with you--and you have failed to meet it and resent being asked to do so. This says a lot about you.

    94. What burden of proof? This isn't my final thesis here. Not every internet discussion needs 20 links and sources. Again why are you even in this conversation? You clearly are not interested in anything, but disputing peoples claims. Please say something interesting. You are boring me to death right now, but I know deep down you have some good points.

    95. "Again why are you even in this conversation? You clearly are not interested in anything, but disputing peoples [sic] claims." Isn't disputing people's claims, especially claims presented without corroboration, one of the purposes of this thread? However, which of your claims have I disputed?

    96. Yes it is, but in a non offensive way, and I would also add that just disputing claims while bringing nothing to the discussion other than disbelief isn't a very good way to carry out conversations. I would like you to point out something interesting which proves your point that alternative medicine has nothing to offer. Please elaborate how there is currently nothing lying outside established medicine that could be of use today.

    97. " . . . but that's not to say alternative medicines still don't have their own
      place." You are the one making the claim and whether you like it or not or whether you think it's offensive or not, the burden of proof is on you. Your refusal to meet it says a lot about the validity of your claims, especially this one.

    98. I may have claimed that, but you are also claiming that alternative medicine is useless. Now prove it.

    99. By your own admission you have made a claim. Your refusal to back it up coupled with your attempt to dishonestly place the burden of proof on me renders you a fraud.

    100. What dishonesty? Everything I have said is true. Maybe it does come from a place of ignorance, who knows. Clearly not you though as you have done no research and have admitted to that. You want me to do all the work for you. Besides If I post a link my comment will be delayed.

    101. "Everything I have said is true." Shades of "Your president is not a crook." Where have I admitted that I've done no research. "Besides if I post a link my comment will be delayed." What a cop out. As if this were some type of emergency. Well, if you don't want to wait, you can type out your link with spaces in between. Don't try that.

    102. h ttp://e n.wikipedia.o rg /wiki/Curar e

    103. See that wasn't so bad, was it? I read this article quite some time ago. Citing it in tandem with your statement of its use in cardiac surgery (and, by the way, it is not curare itself, but rather its derivatives) would have met your burden of proof.

    104. If you read it then why did you need me to post it? I mean it was the first link here. Why must everything be posted. In my opinion the idea itself is the link. You can search all the respective views on the subject, and I don't bias your search with my link.

    105. You just don't understand about burden of proof, do you? Or perhaps you don't want to or feel you can skirt it.

    106. I understand completely, but I am just trying to have a discussion here. I mean in real life do you constantly call every comment into question and demand a link? Besides I have referenced sources you have clearly not had the time to look into. h t tp://ww w.russellblaylockmd. co m/ check out that site. He has information on nutrition and how it isn't focused on enough and vaccine information. Check out the top links. Read the first page to see his credentials.

    107. Once again, you've provided a source which I will check into. And yes, in real life, when someone makes a factual claim (and I don't mean something pedestrian such as what a person's breakfast fare), I demand sources.

      As for your Dr. Blaylock, I've entered the address you cited (typing spaces wasn't so difficult, was it?) which leads me to several sites pertaining to him. In return, I direct you to skepdic dot com/blaylock dot html.

    108. In turn I link you the bio of the guy that wrote that article, who is not a Doctor. h tt p ://w ww .skepdic .c om/ refuge/bi o . ht ml Guess what? He's a philosopher. That is a far cry from being able to have any opinion on medicine, by your own admissions. He is not an MD. Russell Blaylock on the other hand is a world renowned neurosurgeon, who has pioneered techniques still in use today. Who are you going to believe? Also to back up my claims I just made, check the link on him I already gave you.

    109. I would also point out that I gave an example, but it wasn't good enough for you. You demanded a contemporary example. However the nature of the subject will always cast doubt upon the contemporary alternative medicines. That is the nature of the beast so again I think that they have their place and only time will tell which ones are adopted and found to be useful. Like you say I am not a doctor, but I don't need to be to see that dabbling in absolutes such as "all alternative medicines are useless" is a close minded way of seeing the world.

    110. Because the example had nothing to do with your claim (need I repeat it?) By the way, washing the hands is not a medicament.
      What you happen to think is only so much garbage; it's what you can prove. Once again, what are these "alternative medicines" which might prove useful and did it ever occur to you why these "alternative medicines" are not part of the mainstream and that if they did work, they would be."

    111. Sure it did, it had everything to do with it. You won't find an example, because these things are not proven until they are part of medical science. That's the whole point I'm getting at. I mean I could say that chiropractors are awesome for instance, but until it is truly accepted or proven it can be refuted. So what's the point? Facts and time speaks for itself. I think your denial of all alternative medicine is ridiculous though. I don't dabble in absolutes. I mean I'm not talking about hooeyopathy here. I mean ALL alternative medicine? Ridiculous, to claim something so broad. I think that alternative medicine has proven useful in the past and it will continue to do so. When the proof arises, it is no longer "alternative medicine".

    112. Before you say anything more about chiropractic, I suggest that you read "Trick or Treatment" by Simon Singh and Edward Ernst, M.D., in particular pp. 147-182. In short, there is nothing that a chiropractor can do that a mainstream medical practitioner cannot do better or at least as well.

      Obviously, I have to repeat your statement: " . . . but that's not to say alternative medicines still don't have their own place." Now which current "alternative medicines" "have their own place?" Not only don't you dabble in absolutes; you don't dabble in substantiation as well.