Comments on: Walk by Sight http://www.talkingscience.org/2010/01/walkin-by-sight/ TalkingScience is a non-profit organization focus on educating the general public on science through new media. Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:11:05 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Jacks http://www.talkingscience.org/2010/01/walkin-by-sight/comment-page-1/#comment-30289 Jacks Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:18:36 +0000 http://www.talkingscience.org/?p=3087#comment-30289 I must admit it has been far to long since I last perused this site. I used to check it for a little while but it seemed nothing was changing, no one was blogging so I stopped. I am back and I like what I see: activity, intelligent entries, back and forth discussions, I even saw that Dr. Molly got 8 separate comments on one of her articles. I love this site, I intend to be more active on it, and I want everyone else to continue being active on it, but now I am mad. I started checking this site because I wanted to have intelligent discussions (blogscussions?) with scientifically minded laypersons. I am not a specialist nor a brainiac but neither am I a dullard or completely unversed in scientific dialogue/literature/process what-have-you. This site seemed just right for me but only lacks participants. I understand you are trying to breath some life into this blog/website and writing about inflammatory subjects is one way of doing so. My criticism is this---RELIGION IS NOT A SUBJECT FOR SCIENCE AND HAS NO PLACE ON A SCIENCE FORUM. Please, please, please do not attempt to engage religious fanatics, or bring "spirituality" into a scientific discussion. It can only bring us pain and sadness, and here is why [I think this]. Religion is not based in rationality, or evidence, or reason, or anything that "scientists" consider sacred. It is based in faith. We can not prove there is not a god and until we can (and maybe not even then) it is useless to talk about it. Let them have their faith, their myths, their little fantasies just don't let them steal from us our one safe space. It has not happened yet but if I have to read some comment about how "science never proved nothin'" or how I must have faith to believe in science I am going to sever my carotid with a petri dish shard. Sorry, I am a bit of a sarcastic bastard...can I say bastard? But it is not that I think a little faith is a good thing, I am a staunch atheist so I am not even conceding that they may have a point. The thing is, and don't take this the wrong way, they are right and so you can not argue with them. It is absolutely possible that God made everything a few thousand years ago or a few minutes ago and just planted all this evidence perfectly so it would seem like there is a cause/effect logical explanation for it all. And it is absolutely true that science never proved nothin' (in the vernacular sense not the double negative sense). Although the law of thermodynamics has successfully predicted the outcomes of dozens, maybe even hundreds of experiments, there is only circumstantial (albeit a mountain the size of 80 suns) evidence that it is correct. Science has disproved an untold countless number of things but because the existence of God is not testable it is not our business. In addition I have heard plenty of scientists get far too holy and dogmatic and I know several people of faith whose opinions I cherish and whose judgment I would rarely question. By way of criticism, Jesse, your blog was becoming a bit dogmatic itself. A person wearing a kaleidoscope through life would actually see the actual world as it existed for everyone, they would merely have a different perspective. So I have already wasted too much of everyone's time with this but it is my meager appeal to everyone participating in this blog that we make this a safe space for scientifically minded people. Or if this is something that other people actually want to discuss, maybe there could be a separate forum for that. All that being said, I more or less agree with Jesse. Jacks I must admit it has been far to long since I last perused this site. I used to check it for a little while but it seemed nothing was changing, no one was blogging so I stopped. I am back and I like what I see: activity, intelligent entries, back and forth discussions, I even saw that Dr. Molly got 8 separate comments on one of her articles. I love this site, I intend to be more active on it, and I want everyone else to continue being active on it, but now I am mad.

I started checking this site because I wanted to have intelligent discussions (blogscussions?) with scientifically minded laypersons. I am not a specialist nor a brainiac but neither am I a dullard or completely unversed in scientific dialogue/literature/process what-have-you. This site seemed just right for me but only lacks participants. I understand you are trying to breath some life into this blog/website and writing about inflammatory subjects is one way of doing so. My criticism is this—RELIGION IS NOT A SUBJECT FOR SCIENCE AND HAS NO PLACE ON A SCIENCE FORUM.

Please, please, please do not attempt to engage religious fanatics, or bring “spirituality” into a scientific discussion. It can only bring us pain and sadness, and here is why [I think this].

Religion is not based in rationality, or evidence, or reason, or anything that “scientists” consider sacred. It is based in faith. We can not prove there is not a god and until we can (and maybe not even then) it is useless to talk about it. Let them have their faith, their myths, their little fantasies just don’t let them steal from us our one safe space. It has not happened yet but if I have to read some comment about how “science never proved nothin’” or how I must have faith to believe in science I am going to sever my carotid with a petri dish shard.

Sorry, I am a bit of a sarcastic bastard…can I say bastard?

But it is not that I think a little faith is a good thing, I am a staunch atheist so I am not even conceding that they may have a point. The thing is, and don’t take this the wrong way, they are right and so you can not argue with them. It is absolutely possible that God made everything a few thousand years ago or a few minutes ago and just planted all this evidence perfectly so it would seem like there is a cause/effect logical explanation for it all. And it is absolutely true that science never proved nothin’ (in the vernacular sense not the double negative sense). Although the law of thermodynamics has successfully predicted the outcomes of dozens, maybe even hundreds of experiments, there is only circumstantial (albeit a mountain the size of 80 suns) evidence that it is correct. Science has disproved an untold countless number of things but because the existence of God is not testable it is not our business. In addition I have heard plenty of scientists get far too holy and dogmatic and I know several people of faith whose opinions I cherish and whose judgment I would rarely question. By way of criticism, Jesse, your blog was becoming a bit dogmatic itself. A person wearing a kaleidoscope through life would actually see the actual world as it existed for everyone, they would merely have a different perspective.

So I have already wasted too much of everyone’s time with this but it is my meager appeal to everyone participating in this blog that we make this a safe space for scientifically minded people. Or if this is something that other people actually want to discuss, maybe there could be a separate forum for that.

All that being said, I more or less agree with Jesse.
Jacks

]]> By: Jenni M http://www.talkingscience.org/2010/01/walkin-by-sight/comment-page-1/#comment-27865 Jenni M Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:09:51 +0000 http://www.talkingscience.org/?p=3087#comment-27865 I agree with both KK and Jane, because they both make excellent points. Science (Sight) should be what we walk by because it is proven by fact/trial & error, and to completely ignore fact is ridiculous and will only lead you into trouble. However, Jane does make a point that not everything can be explained by science and reasoning. Despite the fact that the "gut reaction" has been proven by scientists as legitimate, it is a reaction that does not rely on reasoning and practical thinking. Gut decisions aren't made because of facts, they are made purely on emotion and faith. Sometimes, without any evidence at all, people just get very "yucky" or bad feelings about a person. These decisions are made by the unconscious part of a person's brain. There have been people in history who had great success, and this success was not inevitable because of overwhelming fact or rational thinking. The success came from faith and gut feelings. Martin Luther King, Jr. had very few people on his side when he first started preaching the idea of white and black equality, and facts at the time told King that he would never make a huge difference in the African American struggle. Yet he just had this gut feeling that he WOULD make a difference, and he did. The same type of situation occured with people like Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama, The Beatles, Taylor Swift, and countless other individuals. These people had very few if any fact or reasoning backing them up in their quest to be famous and become influential public figures. They only had faith. If we always relied on reasoning, we would never take healthy risks that could in the end change our lives dramatically for the better. If we risk nothing and leave nothing to faith alone, we risk everything. I agree with both KK and Jane, because they both make excellent points. Science (Sight) should be what we walk by because it is proven by fact/trial & error, and to completely ignore fact is ridiculous and will only lead you into trouble. However, Jane does make a point that not everything can be explained by science and reasoning. Despite the fact that the “gut reaction” has been proven by scientists as legitimate, it is a reaction that does not rely on reasoning and practical thinking. Gut decisions aren’t made because of facts, they are made purely on emotion and faith. Sometimes, without any evidence at all, people just get very “yucky” or bad feelings about a person. These decisions are made by the unconscious part of a person’s brain. There have been people in history who had great success, and this success was not inevitable because of overwhelming fact or rational thinking. The success came from faith and gut feelings. Martin Luther King, Jr. had very few people on his side when he first started preaching the idea of white and black equality, and facts at the time told King that he would never make a huge difference in the African American struggle. Yet he just had this gut feeling that he WOULD make a difference, and he did. The same type of situation occured with people like Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama, The Beatles, Taylor Swift, and countless other individuals. These people had very few if any fact or reasoning backing them up in their quest to be famous and become influential public figures. They only had faith. If we always relied on reasoning, we would never take healthy risks that could in the end change our lives dramatically for the better. If we risk nothing and leave nothing to faith alone, we risk everything.

]]> By: Jane http://www.talkingscience.org/2010/01/walkin-by-sight/comment-page-1/#comment-26935 Jane Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:37:59 +0000 http://www.talkingscience.org/?p=3087#comment-26935 If your eyes are opened in faith first then it gets you beyond the things we see with our eyes. Who would go into a dangerous situation if we didn't have faith that we could make a difference? If your eyes are opened in faith first then it gets you beyond the things we see with our eyes. Who would go into a dangerous situation if we didn’t have faith that we could make a difference?

]]> By: KK http://www.talkingscience.org/2010/01/walkin-by-sight/comment-page-1/#comment-26057 KK Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:54:51 +0000 http://www.talkingscience.org/?p=3087#comment-26057 I think you bring up a very good point. There is nothing wrong with religion, but blind faith - the idea that science is some sort of liberal evil is a real problem in today's society. It's like the dark ages all over again when you listen to Palin supporters. I'm excited for next week's blog :) I think you bring up a very good point. There is nothing wrong with religion, but blind faith – the idea that science is some sort of liberal evil is a real problem in today’s society. It’s like the dark ages all over again when you listen to Palin supporters.

I’m excited for next week’s blog :)

]]> By: Aleks http://www.talkingscience.org/2010/01/walkin-by-sight/comment-page-1/#comment-26043 Aleks Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:09:18 +0000 http://www.talkingscience.org/?p=3087#comment-26043 Science is bliss, but can it replace religion. Or could it become the religion of science. Scientology. Science is bliss, but can it replace religion. Or could it become the religion of science. Scientology.

]]>