Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: pantodragon on 24/01/2013 14:13:06
-
On the radio the other day a psychologist was interviewed about her work. She was a developmental psychologist, her particular area of interest being child development. In the programme she said that she did not approve of parents allowing children under 2 years old to watch tv. One reason she gave was that tv images did not encourage eye movement and were therefore damaging a child’s development. The remedy for this, she said, was science i.e. since it is unlikely that parents will stop letting their babies watch tv, then the programmes they watch should be designed by science. An example of the sort of programme she approved of was 3 cubes moving around a screen. We were also told that this psychologist works for a company (or perhaps she owns it, I can’t remember) which is, in fact, designing the very “scientifically approved” DVDs for babies that she recommends. So, if that woman has her way, out go the colourful Titifers singing their lovely song, and in come 3 stultifyingly boring cubes. I know which I’d rather watch.
This interview highlighted two very disturbing issues regarding the increasing control science has over people’s lives.
First, this psychologist is WAY out of her depth. The human mind is simply far too complex to be tampered with in this manner – to do so would be lethal. This scientist is invading the garden of a child’s mind. She has decided that one little sapling is to be given sole attention, so she will withdraw all water and nutrients from the rest of the garden and make a bonsai of the sapling, twisting it with wires into a “scientifically approved” shape, as well as severely stunting its growth.
Secondly, the psychologist’s interference is a blatant example of the Empire of Science trying to move in on the Arts and take it over. If science is allowed to do to entertainment what it has done to food i.e. remove all the flavour, turn eating into a calculation (thus removing all the things that people like about food) - then you let it do so at your peril. If you let science take over entertainment, not only will it become banal and tasteless, but you will no more get to watch what you want than you are allowed to eat what you want. And what you will be allowed to watch will be carefully controlled by “nutritionists”. High on the scientifically prescribed diet will, of course, be very high doses of science, whereas action films, soap operas, or anything that people actually like, will be strictly rationed. So, for example, while you might be allowed to watch a certain number of “units” of football per week, once science gets its dirty little hands on sport, it will turn everything into e.g. the “science” of football, the “science” of golf, and so full of calculations of velocity, force or equations for parabolic curves that you’d hardly see anything of the actual sport.
The truth is that scientists are getting more arrogant by the day. They are seriously above themselves. It was bad enough when they started tampering with nuclear weapons, worse when they got into genetics, and now that they’re getting their fingers into people’s minds, particularly children’s minds, someone REALLY needs to put a stop to them.
-
... once science gets its dirty little hands on sport, it will turn everything into e.g. the “science” of football, the “science” of golf ...
You're too late ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_science
[ How do you think Lance managed collect all those yellow Jerseys : the appliance of science ].
... If science is allowed to do to entertainment what it has done to food i.e. remove all the flavour , turn eating into a calculation (thus removing all the things that people like about food) ...
Blaming your jaded palate (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/tasteloss.shtml) on science is unfair. Punters in the UK generally do not eat bland* food recommended by boffins, far from it, e.g. they eat cereal which is over 33% sugar (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02February/Pages/breakfast-cereals-still-too-high-in-sugar.aspx) which makes them exceptionally fat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15901351) and rots their teeth (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2066970/Parental-bad-habits-behind-child-tooth-decay.html).
[ * healthy food isn't necessarily bland ]
-
On the radio the other day a psychologist was interviewed about her work. She was a developmental psychologist, her particular area of interest being child development. In the programme she said that she did not approve of parents allowing children under 2 years old to watch tv. One reason she gave was that tv images did not encourage eye movement and were therefore damaging a child’s development. The remedy for this, she said, was science i.e. since it is unlikely that parents will stop letting their babies watch tv, then the programmes they watch should be designed by science. An example of the sort of programme she approved of was 3 cubes moving around a screen. We were also told that this psychologist works for a company (or perhaps she owns it, I can’t remember) which is, in fact, designing the very “scientifically approved” DVDs for babies that she recommends. So, if that woman has her way, out go the colourful Titifers singing their lovely song, and in come 3 stultifyingly boring cubes. I know which I’d rather watch.
This interview highlighted two very disturbing issues regarding the increasing control science has over people’s lives.
First, this psychologist is WAY out of her depth. What evidence do you have of this-this is an opinion (yours) and not a fact.The human mind is simply far too complex to be tampered with in this manner – to do so would be lethal. Again just your opinion-based I think on the fear of mind control which wont be a step closer because of this. This scientist is invading the garden of a child’s mind. Anyone who has any interaction with a child whatsoever is "invading the garden of a childs mind". I would say a developmental child psychologist is probably more qualified than any parent/aunt/uncle etc etc out there. She has decided that one little sapling is to be given sole attention, so she will withdraw all water and nutrients from the rest of the garden and make a bonsai of the sapling, twisting it with wires into a “scientifically approved” shape, as well as severely stunting its growth. What do you actually know of the visual perceptual system and the way it develops in the brain during childhood? In order for the visual system to correctly develop the eyes and neurons need movement
Secondly, the psychologist’s interference is a blatant example of the Empire of Science trying to move in on the Arts and take it over. Is it interference? In your opinion only I thinkIf science is allowed to do to entertainment what it has done to food i.e. remove all the flavour,When did science do this? Surely how much flavour your food has depends on how you cook it? turn eating into a calculation (thus removing all the things that people like about food) - then you let it do so at your peril. If you let science take over entertainment, not only will it become banal and tasteless, but you will no more get to watch what you want than you are allowed to eat what you want. And what you will be allowed to watch will be carefully controlled by “nutritionists”. High on the scientifically prescribed diet will, of course, be very high doses of science, whereas action films, soap operas, or anything that people actually like, will be strictly rationed. So, for example, while you might be allowed to watch a certain number of “units” of football per week, once science gets its dirty little hands on sport, it will turn everything into e.g. the “science” of football, the “science” of golf, and so full of calculations of velocity, force or equations for parabolic curves that you’d hardly see anything of the actual sport. Hmmmm....the end of the world is nigh? I think you are getting a little carried away here.
The truth is that scientists are getting more arrogant by the day. They are seriously above themselves. It was bad enough when they started tampering with nuclear weapons, worse when they got into genetics, and now that they’re getting their fingers into people’s minds, particularly children’s minds, someone REALLY needs to put a stop to them. But just thin-if we didn't have those mad, bad, arrogant, out of control scientists you wouldn't be able to come on the internet and moan about them...... ;)
-
1) You're too late ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_science
[ How do you think Lance managed collect all those yellow Jerseys : the appliance of science ].
2) Blaming your jaded palate (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/tasteloss.shtml) on science is unfair. Punters in the UK generally do not eat bland* food recommended by boffins, far from it, e.g. they eat cereal which is over 33% sugar (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02February/Pages/breakfast-cereals-still-too-high-in-sugar.aspx) which makes them exceptionally fat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15901351) and rots their teeth (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2066970/Parental-bad-habits-behind-child-tooth-decay.html).
[ * healthy food isn't necessarily bland ]
1) Yes, I'm sure everybody is aware of sports science. What they seem to be unaware of is what is actually going on here and what the consequences will be for themselves. Science is empire building and like all empire builders before it, it will not be satisfied until it has taken over the world. That is extreme impoverishment. That is like killing off all the animals except domestic and farm animals.
2) Have you been in a supermarket recently? Or a butchers? Are you old enough to have actually enjoyed fatty foods? Are you old enough therefore to know how much is lost when science persuades food producers to cut down on saturated fats in their products, and even farmers to breed less fatty animals? This is just an example, but I could go on and on. Almost everything we eat is processed one way or another, both in the growing and in the preparation, and that processing is according to the dictates of science. As to sugar: when one has a rotten diet, one is going to eat something bad. When one is ill, one will eat something odd. For example, it is well known that animals when they are ill will eat foods which they do not normally touch (there is even a kind of South american parrot which eats clay to off-set the poisons in its normal diet). So, I would suggest that to deny people their sugar is to deny the animal something it senses it needs and in so doing, you may prevent tooth decay, but only at the expense of allowing the illness to blossom that sugar had been preventing. I wonder if cancer was as prevalent in pre-sugar days as it is today?
-
1) Yes, I'm sure everybody is aware of sports science. What they seem to be unaware of is what is actually going on here and what the consequences will be for themselves. Science is empire building and like all empire builders before it, it will not be satisfied until it has taken over the world. That is extreme impoverishment. That is like killing off all the animals except domestic and farm animals.
You seem to think science is some sort of body with an intention. Its a subject and people study it and use it to improve their everyday lives. Are their people who use it immorally or illegally, yes, of course there are but that's a problem with those people not a problem with science. People build empires and people try to take over the world (haven't noticed any that have succeeded yet though, have you?). What specifically don't you like about sports science? If you gave some examples maybe we could have a proper debate about its usefulness or not.
2) Have you been in a supermarket recently? Or a butchers? Are you old enough to have actually enjoyed fatty foods? Are you old enough therefore to know how much is lost when science persuades food producers to cut down on saturated fats in their products, and even farmers to breed less fatty animals? This is just an example, but I could go on and on. Almost everything we eat is processed one way or another, both in the growing and in the preparation, and that processing is according to the dictates of science. As to sugar: when one has a rotten diet, one is going to eat something bad. When one is ill, one will eat something odd. For example, it is well known that animals when they are ill will eat foods which they do not normally touch (there is even a kind of South american parrot which eats clay to off-set the poisons in its normal diet). So, I would suggest that to deny people their sugar is to deny the animal something it senses it needs and in so doing, you may prevent tooth decay, but only at the expense of allowing the illness to blossom that sugar had been preventing. I wonder if cancer was as prevalent in pre-sugar days as it is today?
I don't understand why you think "science" persuaded food producers or how it could do it. The rubbish proffered by supermarkets exist because that's how the people who own supermarkets make money.
If sugar could prevent (as opposed to cause) illness, Westerners would be the healthiest people in the world since we consume the most. I think we all know Westerners are pretty much the fattest and sickest....
-
Minerva:
I am not the one who needs to justify myself. Science, and psychology in particular, is getting its hands into people's minds with gay abandon and with the true aggressive enthusiasm of the megalomaniac empire builder. I need only instance the nuclear bomb: at the time the first bomb was exploded, it was not certain that it would not initiate a chain reaction which would destroy the entire world. Did that stop the scientists? Then what about genetics? By their own admission scientists cannot predict the consequences of their tampering. Everywhere you look, scientists are in way over their depth and the human mind, if anything, is the most complex and most vulnerable system they are meddling with. I should justify MY disinclination to have them poke about in MY mind??!!!!! Or express reservations about them poking about in children's minds??!!!! It is psychologists who need to justify themselves and they are a long, long way from being able to do that. Even animals are capable of raising their young successfully without interference from veterinary psychologists. The idea that human beings have not been adequately provided by nature with the means to raise their own young is absurd. One might argue, of course, that we live in a technological environment that nature did not design us for. That is no excuse for meddling. people should either give themselves space to adapt (the adaptability of nature is legendary) or else they should have the strength of mind to say No to technology until they are prepared to deal with it.
-
Well I haven't seen much evidence of gay abandon from the scientists I know but we are only a few. I am afraid you are guilty of bigotry here, condemning all based on the actions of a few. Like I said-of course there are bad scientists and bad science but there are good scientists and good science too.
So instead of going off with a half thought out argument why don't you provide some examples of what you think is bad science and why and lets have a debate about it. If you have a link for the alleged child abuse piece post it and lets see what its about.
-
You seem to think science is some sort of body with an intention. Its a subject and people study it and use it to improve their everyday lives. Are their people who use it immorally or illegally, yes, of course there are but that's a problem with those people not a problem with science. People build empires and people try to take over the world (haven't noticed any that have succeeded yet though, have you?). What specifically don't you like about sports science? If you gave some examples maybe we could have a proper debate about its usefulness or not.
I don't understand why you think "science" persuaded food producers or how it could do it. The rubbish proffered by supermarkets exist because that's how the people who own supermarkets make money.
If sugar could prevent (as opposed to cause) illness, Westerners would be the healthiest people in the world since we consume the most. I think we all know Westerners are pretty much the fattest and sickest....
You are right about the way I see science and I would defend that position. In our world, people seem always to end up secondary to other things, whether that be “the economy”, society, religion, art, science or whatever. It is rather as though these things are raised to the status of gods which people must serve. So, although ideally things ought to be as you describe them, i.e. science at the service of people, the fact is that people have become slaves to science. (There is a clue here as to what gods really are.)
When scientists tell the world at large that saturated fats are associated with heart disease and are otherwise detrimental to the health, then any food producer who does not lower the saturated fat content of his products will find they do not sell.
The point I was making about sugar is that it might well have been consumed BECAUSE people were so ill, and that it prevented some EVEN WORSE illnesses. So, people who consume sugar are ill. Also, you’re making a very simplistic and unjustifiable connection between food and health. There is a great deal more that influences health besides food. For example, I might take the view that it is the increasing use and dependency upon technology that has created such poor health in the West. That position could be justified just as easily as the one about food.
I can offer a couple of examples that show how the body works and how it rejects things when it no longer needs them: I used to be a smoker. I tried unsuccessfully to use willpower alone to kick the habit. After one particularly smokey party when my lungs got clogged, I woke up next morning with a strong aversion to cigarettes. I was UNABLE to smoke again. US writers are notoriously prone to excessive intakes of alcohol. What is less well known is that many of them, when they reach late middle age, develop a sudden and complete aversion to alcohol.
(I used sports science in the OP as an example to illustrate my point. )
-
You are right about the way I see science and I would defend that position. In our world, people seem always to end up secondary to other things, whether that be “the economy”, society, religion, art, science or whatever. It is rather as though these things are raised to the status of gods which people must serve. So, although ideally things ought to be as you describe them, i.e. science at the service of people, the fact is that people have become slaves to science. (There is a clue here as to what gods really are.)
So some people worship at the altar of science...so what? Stating science has a purpose is a nonsense, its like saying evolution has a purpose. Science is an abstract idea and people are in control of that abstract idea.
When scientists tell the world at large that saturated fats are associated with heart disease and are otherwise detrimental to the health, then any food producer who does not lower the saturated fat content of his products will find they do not sell.
When a scientist runs an experiment he publishes his findings. If the media pick up on it they will make a story out of it, if the public like it they will take it up, if they don't they wont. Your version of the public at large is as a mindless moron that blindly accepts whatever is printed or whatever scientists say, as if they have no ability to think critically for themselves.
Doctors and health practitioners for years have stated that saturated fats are associated with heart disease because they were still in the process of learning. They were working with the technology they had at the time and it made sense with the knowledge they had then. Current research is starting to prove it untrue but only because new technologies have allowed researchers to understand more about the inner workings of cells.
The point I was making about sugar is that it might well have been consumed BECAUSE people were so ill, and that it prevented some EVEN WORSE illnesses. So, people who consume sugar are ill. This is just nonsense I'm afraid-people consume ever increasing amounts of sugar because of its addictive properties, not because they have some inbuilt instinct for food that cures illnesses. We have learnt which plants/chemicals heal and which harm by experience not intuition Also, you’re making a very simplistic and unjustifiable connection between food and health. There is a great deal more that influences health besides food. Of course there is but if you think the food you consume doesn't have a direct and instant impact on your health you are mistaken. You are what you eat is one the most fundamentally true statements ever made. Rice DNA has been found inside the remains of many humans and I can categorically assure you that no human ever successfully mated with a rice plant. It got there because it was eaten. For example, I might take the view that it is the increasing use and dependency upon technology that has created such poor health in the West. That position could be justified just as easily as the one about food.It is well known that poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle contribute to the state of health in the West. The USA in particular has completely lost sight of what a portion of food is.
I can offer a couple of examples that show how the body works and how it rejects things when it no longer needs them: I used to be a smoker. I tried unsuccessfully to use willpower alone to kick the habit. After one particularly smokey party when my lungs got clogged, I woke up next morning with a strong aversion to cigarettes. I was UNABLE to smoke again. US writers are notoriously prone to excessive intakes of alcohol. What is less well known is that many of them, when they reach late middle age, develop a sudden and complete aversion to alcohol.
Neither of those examples make sense or prove/disprove anything-they are hearsay/anecdotal. I know how the body works, I have successfully steered mine through a serious illness through diet and exercise. I don't pretend to know everything but the rejection system it has is the immune system-so your USA writers probably reject alcohol because their livers are so cirrhotic they cant keep the alcohol down any more
(I used sports science in the OP as an example to illustrate my point. )