The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Need To Be A Winner Leads To An Unethical Communal Delusion  (Read 2828 times)

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
You're 15-ish and you step out to make your mark on the world. This is a time to make life long friends. But you want to be the most interesting of the group which requires the use of your social skills. There is a communal need in most people, and fitting in with the community is high on your agenda. At the same time as stepping out as an individual you wonder about life itself, and who you are, and who you want to be. A lot of people have already been pointed in a certain direction, and their community is related to their family decisions. A person makes certain choices either fresh, or based on a family background...

Follow a Football Team
Be  a Christian
Follow Science
Watch Eastenders, Coronation Street, a topical show.
Follow Art
Follow Music

These are all things that can be shared in conversation, and are the main point of this thread. The community conversation... a forum.

But the main subject that stands out in the list is Science, and it is science that is not supposed to include a communal delusion... but it does, a very nasty one, almost to the point of being regarded as an illness.

It starts of innocently... each person has an hero in their communal discussion...

David Beckham, Steve Bull
Jesus Christ, God
Isaac Newton, Einstein
Dirty Den, The Mitchell Brothers
Da Vinci, Monet
Bach, Fat Boy Slim, Michael Jackson

In most cases the delusion doesn't matter. It's a matter of personal taste. But the ones that stand out like sore thumbs are.. Jesus Christ, God, Isaac Newton, and Einstein. They stand out because it does matter if they are being factual or not. It matters because they include possible delusional states of mind.

So we will stick with Christianity (religion), and Science as topics that require the need for the truth. And being as Religion speaks for itself, and there is faith which requires no proof, we can skip straight to science.

Science is the subject that needs to contain no delusion, and contain evidence of the truth. But unfortunately, this makes the delusion harder to break, and that's why it is close to an illness... unless you are able to adapt quickly to the new theories going around. Newton died 1727, are people adapting to the new ideas going around?

Well, if Newton was right then there is no delusion going around. Unfortunately, Newton was very wrong, and the delusion is easy to break...

1/ Pull your computer mouse towards your chair...



2/ Push your computer mouse towards your chair.

Where were your fingers? Did they move? Did you struggle to place your fingers the second time? You are deluded. Pull forces do not exist... at all. 1687 was the start of this delusion.. how is it still going today? Go to 1 min 20 seconds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr2kF0zEgI

The community laughs when Pheobe mentions being pushed to the Earth, it's a joke. It's the truth, but it's treated as a joke. This is the danger of science becoming ingrained, and it is why it is a mass delusion. If you don't go along with the delusion, you are a joke.

I am not a joke. To break free of the delusion, and prove that it is a delusion (push, pull a mouse), makes you the smart guy in town. But how strong is that delusion after you have push / pulled a mouse? It's still there. Most people will then change the subject to magnetism to keep the delusion alive. But magnetism is an invisible force, and therefore to keep the delusion alive a scientist is giving you an invisible example of a pull force. This is a scientist!!! Using invisible examples!!! Maybe we should go back to the Christians and compare...

G for Gravity the invisible pull force.
G for God the invisible creator.

P for the preacher.
D for Dawkins

The sermon of the Big Bang... which is also a delusion easy to destroy. Where did it begin, what is outside of it? These are paradoxical, but science doesn't treat them as paradoxical to keep the delusion alive. The answer is to not ask the questions, or the questions have no meaning.

To a human origin the Big Bang is a paradox. So the human origin is treated as delusional... and it is delusional. But there is also a maths proof that shows a fault in the Big Bang Theory...

1 + -1 = 0

This sum shows that there has to be something outside of the Big Bang, because nothing is made from things. Outside the Big Bang cannot be nothing. Outside the singularity there has to be something. And if there is something outside of the singularity, then the whole point of the singularity to move things outside is a waste of time.

The community delusion is then to speak for everyone...

"Nobody knows why this happens..."
"It is impossible to explain space..."
"I trust Newton's word over your word..."

The delusion is so strong that breaking it could lead to mental health problems. The science advocate like Dawkins who speaks out so loudly, then has to face that they were behaving religiously. They become the person that they dislike the most. 


 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage

....... And being as Religion speaks for itself, and there is faith which requires no proof, we can skip straight to science.


Well, I'm glad you've sorted that out so quickly and easily. If only all the worlds problems and questions could be dealt with so efficiently.

Take a look at this clip. Released in 1958 by Walt Disney, it was taken as being true. After all Walt Disney said so, so it had to be true. Everyone believes Walt Disney. Henceforth, anyone blindly following another into disaster was known as a Lemming.

I still believe Walt Disney, no matter what anyone might say.

Quote from: ABC Science
The myth of mass lemming suicide began when the Walt Disney movie, Wild Wilderness was released in 1958. It was filmed in Alberta, Canada, far from the sea and not a native home to lemmings. So the filmmakers imported lemmings, by buying them from Inuit children. The migration sequence was filmed by placing the lemmings on a spinning turntable that was covered with snow, and then shooting it from many different angles. The cliff-death-plunge sequence was done by herding the lemmings over a small cliff into a river. It's easy to understand why the filmmakers did this - wild animals are notoriously uncooperative, and a migration-of-doom followed by a cliff-of-death sequence is far more dramatic to show than the lemmings' self-implemented population-density management plan.

So lemmings do not commit mass suicide. Indeed, animals live to thrive and survive. Consider a company like Disney, where one rodent, namely Mickey Mouse, was Royalty. It's rather odd to think that Disney could be so unkind to another rodent, the lemming...
www.abc.net.au

Its so easy to tell people a tall story and then instruct them to 'have faith' in that story. And it works!

What you fail to understand, is that science continually questions itself. This not a failure on the part of science, but a recognition that our understanding of science changes as we learn more. An open mind is essential in science. Sadly, the same cannot be said of religious belief for some. But there is a growing number who are prepared to open their minds. They have come to the realisation that the closed book which is biblical text, needs to be re-examined.

The biblical age of Earth is some 6000 years, yet Egyptian history dates back more than 7000 years and fossil remains have been dated to half a billion years and more. The biblical story of Noah and the great flood is the cause of great concern. Re-populating the animal kingdom (humans included) from just a handful of individuals would mean in-breeding which would cause horrendous mutations. If two such fundamental kingpins of the biblical story can be so manifestly wrong, what else is pure fabrication in the story of religion?

Science does not seek to disprove the existance of God, it could not do so, even if it tried. But you, my friend, must not close your eyes to possibilities. Your God did not tell you to have blind faith in him. It was somebody else who told you that that is what God said. In other words, you have faith not in God, but in those who tell you to have blind faith in God. They protect themselves from questions by saying that to question them is to question God. A rather neat trick.

Keep your faith, by all means, I would not seek to deny you that. But do not be one of Disney's Lemmings. Do not follow blindly. Ask questions, and if the reply is 'Do you dare to question God?" You may say, no, I do not question God, I question you.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
I should just add, that science does not seek to delude. It hypothesises and theorises. With a bit of luck and the wind in the right direction it will come to a conclusion. But even then, that may change with passage of time and new discoveries.

It's your fault if you don't understand me.

A classic religious get-out clause.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
This is the delusion in words....

Quote
What you fail to understand, is that science continually questions itself. This not a failure on the part of science, but a recognition that our understanding of science changes as we learn more. An open mind is essential in science.

.. that is the delusion that I am talking about. It's not true. Science never questions itself, it just pretends to. The people in forums never question themselves, they speak for everyone. They use 'we' even for my own posts. If I post in a thread they will say that "We do not understand space." How did everyone get included in a reply? Because it is a communal discussion, and the delusion must fill the community totally, else one person is an outsider. I'm the outsider, because I continually question science. Hence questioning science is not really allowed. Hence the quote is a delusion. Most forum members have issues with thinking that science is true.

Science is always woo woo, and is supposed to be woo woo. That's part of the scientific process that it is never supposed to be thought of as reality.

However, I have changed the proof. My proof is that I build the entire Universe from scratch in a computer without using maths without physics. For example, I can't use X/Y/Z because they don't exist, so I have to work out how a particle has an actual location in real life. Then I can say that my simulation is supposed to represent reality, and not woo woo.

I avoid the chance of ever being deluded, because I am not allowing any deliberate formulas to happen.

But trying to explain this in a science forum breaks the scientific rule that maths is a proof.

Maths is a measurement, not a proof. You drop things from buildings, and that is a measurement. The word 'pull' crops up, and that is a failed proof. That's one of the first ever proofs wrong already. Newton came up with the idea that maths is a proof without proving that maths is a proof. He actually proved that maths isn't a proof by saying 'pull'.

In fact, for you to miss the point of my original post is worrying in itself. I already included the example that science doesn't question itself.. but you somehow missed it.
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
By the way, the Lemmings story was a good example. This is the one that I always use...

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery#.UVRYdjdrRCM
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Oh, by the way, I just noticed that you think I have faith in God. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in a God, apart from nature. I believe in the Earth that I want to protect as though it were a God. So similar. I would also want to protect our Solar System, and our Galaxy. I believe in nature, and I feel that nature believes in me... whatever that means. Nature likes me.
« Last Edit: 30/03/2013 08:33:48 by Pincho »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
I believe in nature, and I feel that nature believes in me... whatever that means. Nature likes me.
Now that's wonderful. Alas, you're not the victim you may have thought you were after all. Nature likes you..............................
« Last Edit: 01/04/2013 22:45:25 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline katesisco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
I was wondering if war could be a natural cycle of our primary motivation of which I see three: food, sex and fairness.  If fairness is a major driver then as the assets are collected by the elite, the only response would be eventual war driven by our need for fairness.  We have done a lot of manipulation in history to created other causes, but the manipulation I is see most, including the media blitz now, is to buzz the mind as a way to occlude our drive for fairness. 
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
War is the urgency to be right. If you push the urgency too far you will force a person to prove their point. If someone is urgent to prove the point of God, then they will shout louder. If someone wants to prove the point of Newton then they will shout louder. If someone wants to prove the point of mathematics, then they will shout louder.

That's why I am not allowed to post in most threads. Science wants to shout louder than me. I am up against 7 billion people who use the word pull for Gravity. I am limited to how loud I can shout. But my message is the most important message on the planet.

And money... it's worth billions, not millions. Somebody wasting their time trying to think like me could just employ me, and still make billions. I don't see why I haven't been contacted yet. This is money, I do it because I wanted to know everything, but it's still money.

I want a big TV, and a house, and a car.. my needs are not great. I am on Twitter...

@PinchoPaxton.

So how do I know that I am not delusional...

because I can program it into a computer. And not a normal program with maths, a fractal program that self builds.

What are the chances of a self building universe program being wrong? ZERO. No chance that it can be wrong. Sigma Infinity.

I have infinite proof.

 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
Comes across as delusional.  ::)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Ahh Pincho :)

If you program you use a programming language, or a script language. That one is based on binary mathematics, or logic, a subset to all other mathematics existing outside a computer. The mathematics are created from the very thing you get so disappointed in, science. Whatever fractal you create also builds on it. And the physics used outside that computer are not delusional, if it were your computer wouldn't exist. And fractals are used in physics too. So what you build on describing it is physics, defined from, and main stream accepted. Why not use the words that exist, assuming they do, instead of reinventing the wheel? If your theory is sound I'm sure you will find the mathematics describing it from a main stream perspective too.
 

Offline bizerl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
The way I see it is this.

We are all scientists. No matter what we believe, whether it is that God created the Earth several thousand years ago or we are populated by dead aliens who use us as puppets, or even that we are the results of billions of years of baryonic particles becoming more and more complex, we come to that conclusion because it fits with all the evidence presented to us. The evidence gathered over the years through our senses is analysed and the model that would best fit it all is chosen.

The difference between the religious belief and the scientific belief is that the religion becomes the standard to which all subsequent evidence is evaluated, while a scientist will question everything, and cross-reference personal evidence with what other people have come up with, thus insuring that the conclusions drawn relate not just to the individual, but to the universe as a whole.

The problem with "atheism" is that it falls into the trap as religion. It is one thing to say "there is currently not enough evidence to prove that God exists", but another thing entirely to say "I believe that God definitely does not exist".

Whilst the Big Bang may be wrong, the force we call gravity may not exist, 1 + 1 may in fact equal 17, the issue is that all the accumulated evidence that has been built up over many years from many different independent sources has shown that the current mainstream scientific model is the one that fits all that data the best.

No one is saying that this is the end of it but if you propose a model, you have to have the observations to match it. You also have to open it up for criticism as it can never really be proved, it can only fail to be disproven. As soon as one person can disprove it, the model needs to be revised or scrapped.

I do think it's noble of you to try and explain the universe without maths but I think that's where the problems with "pushing and pulling" come from, ie. from trying to explain things to people like me who can't understand the maths. The world is the way it is regardless of whether we have the correct words to describe it. Also, I agree with Yor_on in that if you are using a computer in any way, you can not limit the involvement of maths, especially when the crux of your arguement seems to come back to a mathematical formula (1 + -1 = 0).

In terms of this forum, it has been repeatedly mentioned by all the moderators in numerous threads to numerous posters that this forum is for the Q and A of current mainstream science. That is probably why "We" is used. It denotes the current consensus of what mainstream science in.

Maybe I've missed your point, and I'm sorry if I have. I didn't mean to rant so much but once I started I couldn't stop!
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Its 100% social Christians push there beliefs and so do scientists, every "theology" in the world does it, that's the name of the game.  That truth has been known for a very, very, very long time.  Its just the way people are and always will be.  The question is what are you going to do about it, the truth is known already so telling people this is not going to change anything.  Its real and you can't stop it, you have looked past the "delusion" so now you can figure out how it works and use it to your advantage. If your not going to use such a awesome knowledge then there is no point in knowing it.  But know that truth holds more power then you know, its what makes a real sorcerer his powers.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: Pincho
You're 15-ish and you step out to make your mark on the world.
Question: Unless it really bothers you, would you mind telling us how old you are? Are you 15 yo?

Quote from: Pincho
This is a time to make life long friends.
Itís quite naÔve to think that but I do grant that is the case with most teenagers. Only when you get older will you find out that most of the people you call your friends will disappear from your life later on. And if you get a serious illness you can plan on loosing nearly all of your friends. It happens to the best of mankind.

Quote from: Pincho
But you want to be the most interesting of the group Ö
Since when? I never wanted to be the most interesting. To be the most interesting means to stick out and be very different from everyone else. If often leaves to petty jealousy. For example; I thought I was fortunate to be the most intelligent person among nearly all the people Iíve ever met. I learned how naÔve it was to think that. I can be very bad to be very smart. It alienates people. E.g. there was this incredible hot babe I was attracted to (had the cutest butt Iíve ever seen on a babe to this day) and she was very attracted to me. We started dating but it didnít last very long. Many years later I asked her why she backed off and she told me that I was too intelligent, that she felt dumb being around me. I quickly learned to dumb myself down in public. You donít want to be better than everyone else. It alienates people. People want to be among their peers.

Quote from: Pincho
There is a communal need in most people, and fitting in with the community is high on your agenda.
Thatís built into us. It arose from an evolutionary process since it promotes survival when individuals in a group help others in the group. Thatís why its said that man is social animal.

Quote from: Pincho
But the main subject that stands out in the list is Science, and it is science that is not supposed to include a communal delusion... but it does, a very nasty one, almost to the point of being regarded as an illness.
This conclusion is based on your ignorance of science. Note that when we use the term ignorant in this forum it doesnít mean ďstupidĒ or anything like that. It means lacking in knowledge. It doesnít mean lacking in intelligence, although that is one sense in which the term is used. I, however, donít use it to mean that since I donít like to insult people.
Since you have an idea of science which is quite incorrect, Iíll post the precise meaning as accepted by nearly every single scientist Iíve ever learned from, worked with, met, heard of or whose work Iíve ever read. The following is the response by the American Association of Physics Teachers as published in the American Journal of Physicsvolume 67 (8), August 1999. You can read the article yourself at
file:///F:/Physics%20World/ref/what_is_science.pdf

Quote
What is science?

The following statement was originally drafted by the Panel on Public Affairs ~POPA! of the American Physical Society, in an attempt to meet the perceived need for a very short statement that would differentiate science from pseudoscience. This statement has been endorsed as a proposal to other scientific societies by the Council of the American Physical Society, and was endorsed by the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers at its meeting in Atlanta, 20 March 1999.

Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to:

(1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists; this requires the complete and open exchange of data, procedures and materials;

(2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental evidence.

Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.---- American Association of Physics Teachers
That is precisely what science is as understood by nearly all professional and amateur scientists who have at lease a college degree in a science.

What science is not is it is not a ďcommunal delusionĒ as you claim it to be and again, another claim that you merely state with no justification whatsoever.

Quote
It starts of innocently... each person has an hero in their communal discussion...
What starts? Are you saying that teenage fantasy and their first approach to life after high school or are you saying that all well educated scientists starts off with a hero? Since you start off with these

ďDavid Beckham, Steve Bull, Jesus Christ, GodĒ
Iíve never even heard of the first two and the last two have nothing to do with science.

Quote
Then it canít be science youíre referring to.
Who is the ďyouĒ that youíre referring to?

The rest of the list is only part of a disorganized thought so I wonít address it until/unless you clarify yourself.

Quote
Jesus Christ, God, Isaac Newton, and Einstein. They stand out because it does matter if they are being factual or not.
Your error here follows from your misunderstanding of what science is.

Quote
So we will stick with Christianity (religion), and Science as topics that require the need for the truth.
People have needs. Science is not a person that has needs. Itís a methodology and that methodology, while it has an ultimate goal in the search of truth, knows quite well and works within the limits of knowing that truth is not something that science can deliver since as defined above is not a process that has the ability to determine whether something is true or not with no doubt as to whether its true. Ever since I started reading your posts its been quite evident top me that you think that science is something that proclaims truths about nature. Iíve already told you that assumption was wrong but as evidenced by this comment you ignored it. The scientific method cannot lead to truths. It can only attempt to steer in the direction of truth by observing nature, formulating hypotheses about nature based on those observations and then formulate experiments to text those hypotheses. If the experiment is consistent with the hypotheses then the theory has a good reason to be assumed to be accurate but if the experiment contradicts the hypothesis (one or more that is) then the theory has to either be modified or discarded. And the process starts all over again. But for some reason that youíre not willing to explain you keep making claims about what science is according to what scientists hold that it is.

Quote
when Pheobe mentions being pushed to the Earth, it's a joke. It's the truth, but it's treated as a joke. This is the danger of science becoming ingrained, and it is why it is a mass delusion. If you don't go along with the delusion, you are a joke.
Again, you donít know what youíre talking about. The reason that people laughed a her was because it was intended to be funny, i.e. to be a joke. The reason that its funny is because whether gravity pushes or pulls is not a meaningful statement. If you knew how gravity worked and knew what it means to pull or push something then youíd understand. But you yourself explained to us that you chose not to learn science and to make up your own. So donít blame us if real science is not what you thought it was. You have only yourself to blame for choosing not to understand all of this.

To ďpushĒ something means to apply a contact force to an object in the direction towards the surface away from the outside of the object. I.e. if you get outside your car, walk around to the back of it, place your hands on the back of the car and apply a force in the direction from back to front. What youíre doing is applying stress to the object, in this case the car. This means that youíre acting to compress the car just a bit. If you did the opposite and went to the front of the car and attached a chain to it and pulled the chain in the direction from the back to the front but acting ahead of the car instead of behind it then youíre actually stretching the car a bit. This is called ďtension.Ē Thatís the difference between push and pull. The reason that this canít be applied to gravity is that gravity acts on ever bit of an object all at once and doesnít apply a contact force only from a outside surface. This is especially true when the object is in a uniform gravitational field. If the gravitational field is not uniform then gravity induces tidal forces in the object but still acting on ever bit of the object but merely by different amounts and still not restrained only to contact forces acting only at the surface of the object. Any physicist could tell you this. But since you willingly chose not to learn it and thought that youíd do better then thatís how you became confused as to the truth about what physicists say about it.

Quote
I am not a joke.
When you choose to not learn about what science and as such know absolutely nothing about it and then make all sorts of claims as to what it does and doesnít do then how can we take you seriously?

Read a book on science or the philosophy of science and youíll be on the road to knowing what itís all about rather that what you mistakenly thought it was all about.

E.g. youíve been making all sorts of bogus claims about science not correcting itself of scientists not willing to admit their mistakes or recognize them or even acknowledge that we do make them. Let me instead show you a good counter example to your wrong claim.

From the philosophy of science textbook Scientific Inquiry: Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Edited by Robert Klee. Oxford University Press, (1999). The first sentence from page one starts off and continues as
Quote
When human beings investigate something they can make mistakes. Systematic and detailed inquiry into the structure of the natural world, for example, is not guaranteed beforehand to result in success. Sometimes it isnít even clear beforehand what sort of outcome to inquiry would count as success. You can search but not clearly know just what it is youíre looking for. You can know what youíre looking for but fail to observe its presence right in front of you. Etc.
And it goes on to explain the nature of science. If one were to read what you think science is then theyíd walk away having a very different idea of what itís all about than what a real scientist would explain. In any case I'm glad I didn't start to learn what science is from you.

I recommend that you learn what science is before you claim that itís wrong or delusional..Again, nothing personal. I'm just calling it as I see it. And don't get the impression that I'm insulting your intelligence. I' merely criticizing your knowledge.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums