Do you lean towards materialism, or do you think science has an unwelcome tendency to ignore phenomena that it cannot explain? Some of the phenomena treated in this article are life after death, intuition and memory. Also, it touches upon the relation between science and religion, science and mind-altering drugs, and science and pets.
PART 1:
ReplyDeleteThere is one great mistake most people on this world do. They come to conclusions at times when they should not. I am a person that thinks a lot, a person that is curious about everything that is going on around him and tries to come up with logical explanations for each phenomenon. When I say logical, I mean more leaning towards the scientific than religious side. I have my theories for many things from the behavior of certain people in certain situations formed over a longer period of time of observation all the way to theories that define the functioning of the universe. I do not however have a single theory on the creation of the universe. The reason for that is simple. I only tolerate theories that are seemingly undeniable, not seemingly possible. Since I am incapable of knowing for sure how the universe came to be, I cannot form any theory, nor am I going to attempt to form a hypothesis relating to a problem that is beyond my abilities to comprehend. I accept that the universe exists (yes, only to the extent of which I can perceive it, but I do not want to get into TOK) and until I can be sure how it came to be, I am not going to even attempt to create my own opinion.
Science an Religion both ignore this approach. They both have very nice theories on how the universe came to be and I say that only one theory (and it might not even be a theory we have at this point at all, it might be something completely different) can be true. That is the problem.
The article also focuses on telepathy between animals. Scientists of course deny the existence of such a phenomenon, since mind reading is not exactly science-compatible. They could try to relate it to subconscious reactions of animals to the movements of other animals in their close range, movements which are also subconscious. Religion could argue that it really is mind reading as we know it from fiction and that science is just trying to rationalize it with their current knowledge and no open-mindedness. Then of course if a dogs owner decides to start his journey home and the dog knows about it immediately, there must be something else at work, the scientific explanation is no longer valid, it must be God's work, why aren't the scientists open-minded and the conflict is here.
I disagree. Allow me to give you my (undeniable) theory on how telepathy could work (watch out, important- COULD work. It has this undeniably possible method of working. It might work using a different principle, but this one WOULD work, if telepathy decided to use it)
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteOur brain, mind and thoughts are functioning thanks to the connections between neurons of our brain. Through these neurons pass electric impulses, which our mind visualizes as thoughts. As thoughts exist due to electric impulses, and we know that electric impulses create electromagnetic fields, every thought or visualization on our mind of anything, creates an electromagnetic field around our brain. The size of this electromagnetic field is infinite, but it's strength is never zero. It is exponential and therefore it has a certain strength (however small it might be) at every distance. We also know that placing a conductor into an electromagnetic field, creates a current in the conductor. Thus we can deduce that if there are two people, one of which is concentrating on visualizing something, his electromagnetic field will affect the second persons brain and currents inside it as well. The magnitude of that effect might be very small, but it is undeniably there at all times. If the second person could use his brain to read the impulses, you have telepathy. And of course we have no guarantee that animals have not accomplished this already.
Science does not have the tendency to ignore phenomena it cannot explain. Trying to explain phenomena that we cannot understand yet is the PURPOUSE of science. If science is ignoring things it cannot explain, I do not understand what do you propose are all the researchers in laboratories doing? Just sitting, pretending to be doing something important while doing nothing at all? Who would fund that?
I also do not try to explain the creation of the universe. That does not mean I ignore it and pretend I do not believe it got created. It only means I see no point in trying to come to a conclusion. Religions came to conclusions and look what effect it had. Ancient civilizations killing each other in a desperate attempt to convince them that their views are right and all others are wrong. I am not really a fan of that, especially if ALL views, scientific or religious,that here ever been thought up might be wrong. I am not saying that not trying to explain unexplainable phenomena is a good way to go, but let's face it. People that do not try to explain something they cannot definitely explain will never make a mistake. People that rely only on undeniable facts can never be proved wrong. I do not say things. I check them.
@Simon
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Simon in his idea of checking things before saying them, or making conclusions. People are not searching deeply for answers and proofs of various things for nothing; they want to be sure in what conclusion they can make. Only after reading Simons comment, I realized that really only religion and science are branches that do say things, though in religion not everyone believes it. However, in science people really make sure that what they say is true. Taking into consideration some biological or chemistry facts as DNAs or periodic tables. Though, normal people who do not understand science that much cant really make conclusions from it because they cant prove these things to themselves on their own, we just have to believe what is said. There are many things that can’t be proved or explained. The creation of the universe is only one of the examples. If I would have extra time for long thoughts, I would also think about how the four elements were created – water, air, ground and fire or if they are other planets in the universe except the ones in our milky way and so on… These thoughts require a lot of time, and they can be considered to be useless because no one ever will come to truly believable conclusions.
Well this is an interesting comment. What really strikes me, is when you say that “only religion and science are branches that do say things, though in religion not everyone believes it”. You cannot really say this. Not only in religion not everyone believes it. Science is just the same as religion, it takes some belief as well and not everyone believes everything. Scientists have theories that explain various things and the defining difference between science and religion would be, that science is not going to force you to believe anything. Scientists are not going to fight wars over their views on Quantum Superposition, they are not going to annihilate an entire civilization if it does not believe in gravity nor are they going to kill anyone that thinks the Theory of the Big Bang was named after a television series. Neither science or religion is believed by everybody. For example, I do not believe in randomness, despite the fact that Superposition is against that view. But it is just a theory and even though my view might just be true, I am not going to punch anyone that says the famous phrase ”lol, how random” even though I think that even the position in which you are right now while reading this comment was predictable one million years ago.
DeleteYou also mention DNAs and Periodic Tables in plural. That would be like talking about waters and airs. They only work in singular as far as I know. You can say that they work with acids or tables, but there is only one specific type of acid called Deoxyribonucleic acid and only one specific table called the periodic table.
As for the four elements, I feel obliged to point out that water, air, earth and fire are not elements. It was an ancient belief that these four (five including aether) are elements, because people did not have the technology to see beyond what they see with their naked eyes. As you previously mentioned the periodic table of elements. THOSE are the elements. There is a lot more squares in the periodic table than four. Unless of course you have seen a periodic table with two periods and two groups somewhere, in which case you have been seriously mislead by someone. You also asked how fire, water, earth and air came to be. To answer that question, one does not need any serious thought. All that is required is either a small amount of general knowledge or a short search of the internet.
Lastly you mentioned the inability to know whether there are any other planets outside our galaxy (called Milkyway). Allow me to show you a picture.
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.gif
That would be the content of the observable universe from our planet. Anything outside this sphere with the diameter of 14 billion light years is out of our sight, because light had not yet managed to travel all the way to our planet from there since the beginning of the universe. Every one of the little white specks on the picture is a supercluster, formed of thousands of galaxies. Each of the galaxies is formed of tens of thousands of stars and many of these stars have orbiting planets. So yes, there are planets outside of our galaxy. There is no doubt about it. Just look at the picture.
As for your line “normal people who do not understand science”. Who is it that decides who is normal and who is not? Why should the people that do not understand science be considered normal? Especially in this state of the development of the human civilization, it could be argued, that people who understand science, are the normal ones. “These thoughts require a lot of time, and they can be considered to be useless”. Thoughts are not useless. They are a sign of curiosity and creativity and most of the greatest inventions are a result of curiosity and thought. You should not consider thought useless and abandon it just because you “have no time for serious thought”.