I thought that was very well said, Mindmelda.
Are You A "Dictionary Atheist"?
by cofty 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cofty
I find the use of the phrase "on a quantum level" is often a woo-woo alert :)
I don't agree entirely as you may have guessed. For example homeopathy is woo-woo, there is not even a tiny minuscule chance that will ever be otherwise. There are numerous other examples in "alternative" medicine we could cite. The anti-Vaccine movement was based on fraudulent science and an anti-science agenda in the popular media. You seem to think it's a virtue to be so open-minded that anything is possible?
Of course we should be open to new discoveries but when somebody makes spectacular claims for their pet touchy-feely theory about cosmic ordering or secret plans for world domination or alien abduction etc I am not going to apologise for calling BS.
Both kinds of thinking are alike in one way, smugness. - mindmelda
Really? Scepticism demands evidence for spectacular claims. Believers get huffy when sceptics ask for evidence and accuse them of being closed-minded. Where is the comparison?
-
mindmelda
Smugness is an emotion, no one is immune to it.
Well, it's true that "on a quantum level" is sometimes an alert to someone trying to baffle you with scientific sounding bullshit, hoping you won't know it, but I say to that educate yourself about it enough to figure if you're being bullshitted. That's your responsibility in life, one of many.
I'm pretty well educated on the subject, but just from my own reading in scientific journals. I can't do the math, but then, neither could a professor of physics I talked to about it. *G*
I do indulge in some alternative medicine practices, but I assure you, when I needed my gallbladder removed, I had it done by a surgeon, not by a psychic healer.
Do I believe in the metaphysical? Yes, to some degree, but I think the more intriguing and plausible aspects may be just science we don't understand yet.
Am I a believer? No, not in God, not in the traditional Christian sense. Just in universal energies and such, as I'm quite a bit more Eastern in my thinking now. Not really a Buddhist, but I've been influenced by it strongly as TM and other aspects of it have worked for me.
I know a very well educated woman in the so called "anti-vaccine" movement, a doctor, but that's a misnomer for some of these people, just as anti-abortionists will mislable their opponents "pro-abortion". There is no pro-abortion movement, only pro choice, which does not define people promoting abortion, merely promoting choice.
What some doctors and patients/parents want is a rescheduling and modification of vaccinations at an older age, when the immune system can better utilize and tolerate them, and better research as to what the other components of vaccines do to children. Vaccine are not tested on children, for obvious reasons, but administered to them. They contain surprising components, among them used to be a form of mercury, thimerserol, which is otherwise considered a poison in certain amounts, but was also removed from other medicines as a preservatives, too. That was quietly removed from vaccines when it was discovered infants cannot tolerate mercury even in small amounts.
Other vaccines were never well tolerated by MANY children, like the pertussis vaccine which had to be completely reworked into a killed vaccine from a live one, as too many children had severe reactions.
My son was one of them, he was born in 92. He received one pertussis vaccine and had a 104 temp and neurological reactions. My own doctor ordered he not be given it again. The Td, is now commonly given the first time for infants at three months, without pertussis, because this reaction was so common.
I cannot tolerate the tetanus vaccine well. I ran very high fevers, become delirious and the injection site, my arm, swelled to twice normal size last time I had one. I have asthma, and I became quite short of breath too.
Some vaccines are still live vaccines, like MMR, which is given only to older babies for that reason. I think vaccination to prevent disease is a good thing, but how can making it even safer, with less risk and equal effectiveness be a bad thing?
There is nothing wrong with demanding that the medical profession improve medicines and make them safer, and not simply exploit the financial profit in medicine.
But, yes, there are "anti vaccine" nuts out there, and it's a shame that legitimate greivances and questions of parents are lumped together with people who get more press because of their extremist views.
There are three drugs which were on the market for years and considered safe by the FDA which are now being removed and class action suits compiled against.
Perhaps if we were more skeptical of research, medicine and science being fallible we'd see less of this sort of thing . Easy enough to apply skepticism to something that doesn't appeal or is easily argued against because it's NOT in the realm of science, but when turned on our own sacred cows, well, maybe that's more difficult?
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Incredible thread! It gives me hope for our species.
I have confidence that even though two people may arrive at different conclusions, if they're both applying critical thinking, they're both headed in the right direction, since CT is essentially progressive and self-refining. The fundamental fact that two such persons will continue to question themselves (as long as they're applying CT) is the key.
You guys encourage me to identify any subjective belief I might "cherish" so I can run it through the meat-grinder to see if I'm deceiving myself. I have very high confidence in this approach since - as we've all experienced - prejudice and bias are huge obstacles in the path to knowledge.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Easy enough to apply skepticism to something that doesn't appeal or is easily argued against because it's NOT in the realm of science, but when turned on our own sacred cows, well, maybe that's more difficult?
MindMelda, I've enjoyed reading your posts, along with the others on this thread. I must confess it's hard for me to apply skepticism to science as a domain, and I'm not saying you're wrong... I just feel that's like saying we should be skeptical of skepticism.
My parents kinda threw that at me before I was disfellowshipped. I explained to them how I had questioning my beliefs to expose bias and prejudice and they were like, "Then why don't you question your questioning?" Oddly enough, I did. In the process, I realized that questioning myself and my cherished beliefs is precisely how I arrived at my then-perspective. To continue to do so would result in an endless loop... infinite regress. (While my goal was progress.)
That said, all of man's scientific discoveries could be - in the grandest scheme - completely wrong. Consider simulation theory. Don't get me wrong, I haven't anymore reason to believe in that than the typical god. But if either hypothesis turned out to be true, then what we call science has only been a discovery of what we perceive, right? So I accept that science only applies to currently perceived reality.
Because of that, I feel the only reasonable option for me is to follow the best currently-available evidence and adjust my thinking as new discoveries are made using the most reliable method currently known: science.
Since I have neither the time nor the ability to become an expert in every field of science, I feel like I'm left with putting a fair amount of trust in top scientists within their field. Are they fallible? Yes. Does that concern me? Yes. But I'm hoping their peers are doing their part to beat the shit out of new theories to expose cracks. Meanwhile, I agree that we should learn to question authority but I'm also left wondering how a layman like myself can know exactly when to call BS on science.
Also, I kinda like Mencken's take on things, but only in the sense that it applies to scientific method:
Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.
In conclusion, the above is only my opinion and I'm often wrong.
-
unshackled
Unshackled, the flaw I see in your analogy of the deserted island is this: Where did this concept of 'god' come from, that they just decided the sun and the moon to be gods?
Hi Tec...sorry I lost track of this thread. Good discussion.
Regarding worshipping the sun, Sabastious started an interesting thread on that not too long ago...
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/206153/1/The-Sun-is-Alive-and-Exerts-Power
-
cofty
I realized that questioning myself and my cherished beliefs is precisely how I arrived at my then-perspective. To continue to do so would result in an endless loop... infinite regress. (While my goal was progress.) - SweetBabyCheezits
Good point. Life is too short to engage in endless navel-gazing. The scientific method works, it has led to fantastic discoveries about the world that have real consequences. Religion and all other superstitions have contributed absolutely nothing and never will.
None of us can prove that "Last Thursdayism" isn't the real answer to life - we all know the heretical "LastFridayism" is the path to hell - so let's assume its not and get on with life. As Darwin said, "There is grandeur in this view of life".