Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?

Originally Posted by Lotus

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.



No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?



You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.

So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology. Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.

That is your opinion, you are basing your opinion on a statement you either misunderstood or chose to incorrectly interpret. Intellect should hold up to the scientific method, if not it's pseudointellectual posturing (as displayed by Chopra and the crazy bitch). You may be a groupie for coffee house poseurs but I'm not.

Originally Posted by Lotus

So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology.

If you don't understand the obvious analogy of plate spinning then the issue is with your abilities not my statement. Psychology is an extremely subjective topic, lots of hypotheses, few established theories and much that is disputed. This doesn't make it bad per se but compared to a more easily measured, agreed upon field it's not what I'd class as admirable.

Originally Posted by Lotus

Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.

According to your logic I must hate Football as I hate the Cowboys. You clearly attempted to set my position as one of anti-intellectual, which it is not.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That is your opinion, you are basing your opinion on a statement you either misunderstood or chose to incorrectly interpret. Intellect should hold up to the scientific method, if not it's pseudointellectual posturing (as displayed by Chopra and the crazy bitch). You may be a groupie for coffee house poseurs but I'm not.



If you don't understand the obvious analogy of plate spinning then the issue is with your abilities not my statement. Psychology is an extremely subjective topic, lots of hypotheses, few established theories and much that is disputed. This doesn't make it bad per se but compared to a more easily measured, agreed upon field it's not what I'd class as admirable.



According to your logic I must hate Football as I hate the Cowboys. You clearly attempted to set my position as one of anti-intellectual, which it is not.

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

[Lotus]

Some of you have indicated that you think that science gives certain knowledge while other disciplines (like psychology) are "subjective."

Please realize two things:
1) Werner Heisenberg won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that all scientific experiments involve the researcher and thus are, in a sense, "subjective." Thomas Kuhn demonstrated that scientific paradigms are not "objective" but reflect cultural configurations. As a result, no current philosophy of science describes science as purely objective.

2) Physics studies the properties of matter yet physicists cannot tell us precisely what matter is. Biology studies the properties of species yet has no accepted understanding of what a "species" is. Chemistry depends on the properties of atoms yet we have no finished concept of the atom.

Science is wonderful but let's recognize its limits.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Science is wonderful but let's recognize its limits.

But ... But ... IT'S Science!!!

(you must understand Kowalski in Penguins of Madagascar, to fully appreciate the sentiment)

PoM - Kowalski - I Am A Scientist - YouTube

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Some of you have indicated that you think that science gives certain knowledge while other disciplines (like psychology) are "subjective."

Please realize two things:
1) Werner Heisenberg won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that all scientific experiments involve the researcher and thus are, in a sense, "subjective." Thomas Kuhn demonstrated that scientific paradigms are not "objective" but reflect cultural configurations. As a result, no current philosophy of science describes science as purely objective.

2) Physics studies the properties of matter yet physicists cannot tell us precisely what matter is. Biology studies the properties of species yet has no accepted understanding of what a "species" is. Chemistry depends on the properties of atoms yet we have no finished concept of the atom.

Science is wonderful but let's recognize its limits.

All legitimately good points. Let's also recognize that proponents of religion have consistently clung to that which science does not yet know as proof that their outlandish claims are possible. Evangelists are like cockroaches, they live in the dark spaces not yet touched by the light of reason.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

That may be the best veiled way I ever saw someone call another a moron.
wow.....

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

Conveniently you left off the rest of the statement in brackets, yet again reframing an argument.

The insult washes off, you're obviously too emotionally involved in the discussion to stay on point. I get that a lot from people who imagine they're intellectually superior, particularly those of a religious bent (not to say that you are, Lotus, but I typically talk with moslems and christians on these kinds of topics).

I do appreciate your responses though and would be interested in continuing to explore our differences after the weekend.

Thanks for your time and efforts!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Conveniently you left off the rest of the statement in brackets, yet again reframing an argument.

The insult washes off, you're obviously too emotionally involved in the discussion to stay on point. I get that a lot from people who imagine they're intellectually superior, particularly those of a religious bent (not to say that you are, Lotus, but I typically talk with moslems and christians on these kinds of topics).

I do appreciate your responses though and would be interested in continuing to explore our differences after the weekend.

Thanks for your time and efforts!

I did not reframe your argument by leaving off the brackets. The counterpoint I made works with brackets included. I have stayed right on topic.

And this is not an emotional argument for me. I am in no way an evangelical Christian.

However, above I presented you with a logical either/or which resides in your arguments. You have not yet told me which side is true.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Then either:
1) Sartre, Voltaire, Camus, Plato, Aristotle, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner...I could go on...were not intellectuals. They did not use the scientific method as we know it.

Or

2) You have a very narrow and parochial understanding of what intellect means, as I said before.

Your call.

Huh? Aristotal didn't use the scientific method, he developed the fundamental princpile of it...empiricism. As for Voltair, he championed elimination of metaphysics in science.


Intellect means wisdom...science is the pursuit of wisdom in all domains, in religion it is the wisdom of God.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by saden1

Huh? Aristotal didn't use the scientific method, he developed the fundamental princpile of it...empiricism. As for Voltair, he championed elimination of metaphysics in science.


Intellect means wisdom...science is the pursuit of wisdom in all domains, in religion it is the wisdom of God.

Yes, Aristotle did develop the principle of empiricism which is the foundation of modern scientific technique. But he did so using a philosophical, not experimental, method, and in that sense he talked about science but did not practice it. He established his arguments through rhetoric, not through scientific experiment. The question above was about scientific practice or method.

Same argument for Voltaire. He was a philosopher more than scientist. The claim above was strictly about scientists.