Why is Spirit Science and other pseudoscience on the rise?
- Thread starter Zontar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry if it came across as an attack on you specifically, I've seen too many people espouse the idea or belief that cult indoctrination doesn't happen to smart people or it only happens to a specific group of people. It was meant as a more general refutation on the the "we're safe because we're smart" mentality, which sadly isn't true.Charmille said:
OT.
This is just one of those things people want to believe in because it's a (To them) better or more comforting answer to their questions than the fact based evidence answers we already have. No matter the question, problem or theory there will always be a person with answers based on evidence and a person with answers based on belief and to some the belief based answer will always seem more plausible.
Captcha: Filthy Rich
I wish captcha, I wish.
I'm rather suprised at this thread, Parapsychology has been around for over a Century and has had high end research done. The best would have been the Duke Para-psychological laboratory that investigated ESP, Ghosts, life after death and other fields that are today derided as 'not real science'. The laboratory ran for fifty years and found quite a few pieces of information that get glossed over today when people laugh at the field.
They managed to get that holy grail of scientific research; repeatable results. For such things as ESP, telepathy and remote viewing. They made surprising research into 'ghosts' and other things that we have entire shows dedicated to, and came up with several hypothesis on many aspects of the Paranormal. They took a lot of heavy flak from the 'respectable' scientific community for a lot of their work.
So research into the paranormal hasn't just become a thing, it's only just begun to gain more popularity in the mainstream after 'respectable science' worked so hard to destroy something that they couldn't understand. Sadly today's 'paranormal investigators' are a far and depressing cry from the real and laboratory grade work done back in the 40's and 50's into the field.
They managed to get that holy grail of scientific research; repeatable results. For such things as ESP, telepathy and remote viewing. They made surprising research into 'ghosts' and other things that we have entire shows dedicated to, and came up with several hypothesis on many aspects of the Paranormal. They took a lot of heavy flak from the 'respectable' scientific community for a lot of their work.
So research into the paranormal hasn't just become a thing, it's only just begun to gain more popularity in the mainstream after 'respectable science' worked so hard to destroy something that they couldn't understand. Sadly today's 'paranormal investigators' are a far and depressing cry from the real and laboratory grade work done back in the 40's and 50's into the field.
Is it getting popular? I don't think it is.
I'm pretty sure it's just as fringe as it's always been. There's just a lot more people now than there were in the 60s.
I'm pretty sure it's just as fringe as it's always been. There's just a lot more people now than there were in the 60s.
Except, unfortunately, the opposite seems to be holding true for the human race, at least for now. The people breeding the most are those who keep getting pregnant by accident - either through lack of knowledge or disdain for contraceptives. The world is also run by those who possess the most wealth, many of whom did nothing of note to obtain this power bar the simple luck of being born into the right family.FalloutJack said:
Meanwhile, those of exceptional intelligence are spending their prime years dedicated to advancing their lot in life and bettering their own lives, whilst not really prioritizing the creation of offspring.
There was an awesome video I once saw on the subject, but alas I can't remember what it was called.
I don't think it's necessarily on the rise as much as it is we're exposed to it a lot more with the internet. In the past, if you had someone making pseudo-scientific baloney statements they'd never get beyond their close circle and maybe an article they published in some obscure magazine.
Nowadays, someone can hop on Youtube and claim they found the cure for cancer or cherry-pick statistics to try and make themselves sound hyper-intellectual, and inevitably someone is going to believe them. Further (and you'll see this all the times) all they have to say is "big __________ (pharma, oil, tobacco, etc.) suppressed this information because they want to make money, but I've managed to get my hands on it!!" and people will jump right on the bandwagon.
I was shocked by how many people I know on Facebook who are otherwise intelligent people posting articles that anyone with Google could debunk in seconds.
Nowadays, someone can hop on Youtube and claim they found the cure for cancer or cherry-pick statistics to try and make themselves sound hyper-intellectual, and inevitably someone is going to believe them. Further (and you'll see this all the times) all they have to say is "big __________ (pharma, oil, tobacco, etc.) suppressed this information because they want to make money, but I've managed to get my hands on it!!" and people will jump right on the bandwagon.
I was shocked by how many people I know on Facebook who are otherwise intelligent people posting articles that anyone with Google could debunk in seconds.
That won't change the fact that they are ignoring modern medicine. That means the viruses, the bacteria, and so on have a target rich environment. They'll all catch something totally curable and pray to little pyramids for an answer and die...while anyone with a bit of sense will go to a DOCTOR and become healthy again. Balance will be restored. There is no hope for willful idiots.EbonBehelit said:
I don't follow this channel in particular so can't comment on it, but I wanted to point out that what is "Pseudoscience" and what is "Science" can become increasingly debatable based on politics. This is something that has been going on almost since the beginning, and honestly there have apparently been some brutal scientific rivalries where the wrong thing was accepted for a long time because it's proponents had society and what it wanted to believe on it's side. Not to mention the ramifications of science changing things for millions of people nowadays, a century or so ago the most you had to worry about was mobs with torches and pitchforks, and perhaps being exiled or arrested by the government. Today where people are far more lethal, and governments with the ability to destroy the world might be tempted to "push the button" if their power base is threatened... well, it's a little different.wombat_of_war said:
Let me put things into perspective, right now there are entire political ideologies based around the inherent genetic equality of all "races" of humanity, and the evils of racism. As we learn more about genetics however, what if we learned that wasn't true? To say that this information could cause massive problems today, with supporting the fiction of equality having far more advantages. The result being of course that those argueing the truth would be viewed as the pseudoscience crackpots.
Don't take that statement as any more than it is, or any kind of "message" from me, you can do that with any BIG issue and play "what if" and wind up with the same results. The point being that so called "pseudoscience" exists on the fringes for a reason since today's "crackpots" can be tomorrows visionaries (or harbingers of doom) with science accepted by the establishment proven false with enough challenges. What's more the same scientist can also be considered a pseudoscientist based on what society wants to believe. I chose the above example because one of the big fringe controversies is how Watson and Crick (especially the latter), the guys who discovered DNA, and whose results are used constantly by the police and the like, were also huge believers in eugenics, and while they played the political game are on record both as racists, and in the idea that humanity was going to have to work on breeding out it's defects by say encouraging rich people to have children which will be more successful, stronger, humans, while discouraging the same from the poor (this is even partially mentioned/quoted on Crick's Wikipedia page). The point here being that people will take SOME parts of their research on DNA and genetics, and then claim other parts of it are pseudoscience and ignore them when they go into uncomfortable territory, choosing to accept the word of other scientists (who might be right, but also could very well not be given who they are disagreeing with and what they did) because they reinforce what we want to believe.... if your getting annoyed and want to project something onto me from pointing this out, or argue genetics (which I won't do, because I'm not exactly a believer myself) your kind of proving the point I'm trying to make. I've said this same basic thing in the past in similar discussions with people jumping on me for it, missing the intention entirely.
I never heard about spirit science until today. I don't care about it. I'll continue my studies of engineering unperturbed by people around me.
My question is... why do people who don't believe about these things care so damn much about them? Why do people want to be free to think, believe, and study whatever they want, then lash out at those who want to feel free to think, believe, and study whatever they want. I cherish my ability to study what I do, learn about the physical world how I do, and believe what I do. and I realize I have that ability because others are allowed to do the same.
If people want to believe in Xenu, let them. If people want to believe in M Theory, go ahead. A practical, sensible theory has just as much place as belief if you can't fully prove either. I remembered feeling stupid for a good long while while reading up on M-theory after believing in the Big Bang as long as I did. And yeah, the collision does allow the idea of the Big Bang, but the application of M kind of shits on what we thought the Big Bang was.
There's all kinds in this world. If you don't believe it, don't get worked up over it. Smile, take it into account what this person believes, and go about your business. You don't want people to go to forums or meetups, complain about what you believe in, and rally a cause to 'convert you to proper thinking'. So why do the same?
My question is... why do people who don't believe about these things care so damn much about them? Why do people want to be free to think, believe, and study whatever they want, then lash out at those who want to feel free to think, believe, and study whatever they want. I cherish my ability to study what I do, learn about the physical world how I do, and believe what I do. and I realize I have that ability because others are allowed to do the same.
If people want to believe in Xenu, let them. If people want to believe in M Theory, go ahead. A practical, sensible theory has just as much place as belief if you can't fully prove either. I remembered feeling stupid for a good long while while reading up on M-theory after believing in the Big Bang as long as I did. And yeah, the collision does allow the idea of the Big Bang, but the application of M kind of shits on what we thought the Big Bang was.
There's all kinds in this world. If you don't believe it, don't get worked up over it. Smile, take it into account what this person believes, and go about your business. You don't want people to go to forums or meetups, complain about what you believe in, and rally a cause to 'convert you to proper thinking'. So why do the same?
Its no grand secret, the world is sadly full of easily gulled people. I guess it doesn't help that we are in a time where people are not doing so great financially because of the economics of the world being screwed so they will turn to anything out of desperation when they are strapped for cash.
Cool, thanks! Edited the original post to reflect that. Also wooooow. I'd thought people were just joking when they said they ripped off the Extra Credits format but, the sped up voice on the slide-show cartoon character, the podium... everything.MarsAtlas said:
And what if someone, who believes in Xenu, thinks that the theory of Xenu should be taught to children in public school's science classes? What if they want to demonize vaccinations and spread unscientific claims about important medicines causing autism? What if they want to go to the worst AIDS ravaged places in the world and try to get people there to not use condoms? What if they want to impose on other people's civil rights?ObsidianJones said:
If it were as simple as a few people having faith-based beliefs, there wouldn't be an issue. But beliefs inform our actions, and actions can be very harmful, not just to those who hold the beliefs, but to those who are affected by that person's actions. It is not about being thought police or trying to steal people's faith, it's about real, tangible public policy and allowing science to continue unimpeded by unscientific thought. So long as there are individuals trying to push unscientific ideas backed by nothing more than will and belief into the public square, there will be those who will push back, and rightly so.
The problem with the 'what if' game is that it swings both ways.Gorrath said:
What if the rise of the scientific intellectual movement dominates and demonizes faith belief systems? What if the scientific intellectual movement gives rise to the idea that faith belief systems are unhealthy and limiting to the mind, therefore outlaws it? What if the lack of 'morality' allows unchecked scientific pushes that prove to be unsafe for the world?
I mean, we can go back and forth. Broad, sensationalist ponderings and fears can be played on both sides. Just because one fits with your realm of thinking does not make it a correct one.
Let's be honest. We've had a Judeochristian dominated society for most of our civilized society ('our' meaning western European/American controlled society). And we are making cybernetic limbs, advances in AI, hell, someone made Medigel from mass effect last year. Could we achieve more if we didn't have to pander to faith based fears? That's a possibility. But the fact that we have achieved even despite a Judeochristian dominated society that's been in place for centuries shows to me that the fears of 'OOH, what if they get more control again' seems a bit silly to me.
To me, it's more a fact that people find it silly to have faith, and have scorn about it. Don't get me wrong. There are many stupid groups like the Westboro Church that just really does everything they can to embody the extreme end of stupidity that people love to 'glorify' faith based groups on. But for everyone of those groups that Atheists love to point and thump on their copy of Darwin that faith just damages and brings down society as a whole, there's a surgeon who saves lives by trusting in the knowledge of science, and keeping calm under pressure using his or her faith in Allah or whoever.
There doesn't have to be an extreme religious society or a completely atheist science based society. There's room for both if people are willing to live and let live. On both sides.
Exactly. Fighting against hoaxsters who cheat innocent people out of their money, or even cause them or their children to die by convincing them all they need is a magic herb or that vaccines cause autism (an idea based on falsified research, by the way) is a good thing. And I don't see how anyone could say otherwise.Gorrath said:
But more to the point you're making ObsidianJones- defending secularism from the attacks it has been getting for several decades is not an aggressive measure, but one essential to protecting freedom. Freedom of religion requires the ability to be free from religion. Otherwise your freedom is limited by what the powers that be want you to believe. Look at a theocracy like Iran for example. Then consider there are organizations actively trying to enforce their religious beliefs on us all through things like altering textbooks or demanding monotheistic prayers before public meetings. It's an attempt to erode the separation of Church and state which is essential to allowing each person to believe what they want to believe while having the same rights under the law.
For another example of what I mean. If you want to bring religion into Government and treat religious laws and beliefs as automatically valid, you have to do that for ALL religions or you're favoring one group of people over another http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite fair is fair.
Except that it's not really a "what if game". Religion HAS been used to do the things he said.ObsidianJones said:
It's been used to try and present magic as an equally valid explanation for the development of life as the theory of evolution in state text books.
Religion has been used as an excuse to deny equal marriage rights for gays.
And the Catholic Church has forbidden people in Africa from using condoms in spite of the AIDS epidemic. Including between married couples where a partner is HIV positive and the other is not. Possibly even spreading rumors that condoms help spread AIDS.
As I said before, this battle for the right to secular thought and belief is a defensive, not an offensive one.
People who believe in woo-woo often have the influence to make decisions which negatively affect myself, themselves, and others.ObsidianJones said:
The difference between your what ifs and mine are that the ones I proposed have and actually do happen and are happening right this moment. The ifs I chose aren't some broad or sensationalist things, they are things that are actually happening right this moment or have happened very recently. There is a movement to try and put faith-based belief into science classes. There are people who have demonized vaccinations, with no evidence, and caused children to suffer because of it. There are priests in the middle of the AIDS epidemic decrying the use of condoms. And there are people who are having to fight tooth and nail for basic civil rights due to other people's religious beliefs. This isn't some random collection of things I picked out of a hat. I'm not playing on fears, I'm talking about realities.ObsidianJones said:
I also find it most odd that you suggest that there would be some lack of morality without faith based belief, but that's a whole different argument. What's more, while I can point out specific examples of powerful groups actually doing the things I pointed out, I have seen no major Humanist/Secularist/Atheist groups in the United States that want the what ifs you suggested. There is a massive religious group with great international power who has tried to stymie the use of condoms. There is not a massive international atheist organization calling for a ban on religion. I think you are engaging in a serious false equivocation here.
There is no doubt that we have made advances in all areas despite being mostly culturally Christian. There is also no doubt that some of the main arguments against progress in the past and in the present, on certain topics, are entirely based on religious objections or unscientific claims. Ask homosexuals fighting for the right to marry if they think fear of religious persecution is "silly".
They point to those groups because those groups do damage. If some surgeon happens to be really good at his or her job and also happens to be religious, it makes no difference to me. What matters is if that surgeon goes on to say that he/she thinks that he has miraculous healing powers due to God's influence and that doctors shouldn't wear gloves or wash their hands because germ theory is "only a theory" and that disease is God's punishment for sin. It's not about people having faith that makes those atheist groups take action, it's when people try and impede the rights of others or spread unscientific claims in place of scientific research that get them all riled up.
I don't propose a religious or atheist society. What I, and most atheist/humanist people I have seen actually propose is a secular society. If someone wants to go to church and pray to God and read scripture, more power to them. If they want that scripture codified as law that's when we are going to step in and fight their ideas with our own.