ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
I don't debate semantics. While that my well be an accepted definition, it lends no credence to the idea that the two experiences as are physically or scientifically equal. I don;t need to provide counterpoint to a dictionary. I've provided counterpoint, supported in materials you have provided, for the physical, scientific understanding of a mechanical basis for thought and consciousness.
Neither do I debate, nor discuss in debate format, philosophy, which is where I think some of this is going.
That's why we kind of have to arrive at an agree to disagree position.
I'm just trying to get to know the way we both think. You have real problems with my belief that there is no debate to be had regarding the paranormal and the science-minded skeptic. This is addressing some of those issues.
I don't feel about science that way that you feel about science. I think what some of this discussion is missing is the disconnect between science, media, and art science.
Science is rarely accurately reflected in the media. That's part of why my day to day life sucks, a little bit.
I work in a place where people aren't that keen on the entity they have defined as "science." The noun "science," to them, is an institution. it's not a set of procedures and tactics, but a body of individuals, like supreme court judges, who make declarations regarding what ti is real and what isn't. These folks use the pronoun "they" a lot. "They say this one week, then they say this other thing this week!" I sigh and die a little inside.
Firstly, "they" doesn't exist. There is certainly a community. There are certainly esteemed people within that community. However, the community isn't an institution. No esteemed person is protected from ridicule and internal justice. It's not a corporation or a bee hive. It doesn't exist to self sustain. When parts of that community misbehave, other parts bring it down at the risk of the those outside of the community perceiving it as self defamation. The community exists to sustain knowledge, even though minority segments poison the well.
Secondly, the community doesn't "say" anything. The mainstream news media will sensationalize journal papers, sometimes contacting the author to get some select statements, and present it as what "science says." This means that one month someone will report on a study that says certain chemicals in coffee prevent cancer and coffee is therefore good for you; the following month, a different reporter will report on that same study, only choosing to highlight that certain chemicals in coffee promote heart disease and coffee is therefore bad for you. To those outside of the community, and with no vested interest in the community, this appears as though scientists say all kinds of contradictory things about the nature of coffee, all the time. In fact, the studies generally make no declaration of whether or not anything is good or bad for you, and both conditions of the study are true. The media has no interest in the concept of science, or how it works; they only know that sensationalism sells, and people have these prceptions of "science" the institution that they can prey on.
This is why I hate news media citation of journal published study. In my view, just site the study. if you can;t find it, you haven't read it, don't presume to know what it says.
Thirdly, there are the concepts of theoretical and art science.
Theoretical science, which is science based more on implied relationships between phenomena rather than physically perceived relationships, can and has been "wrong," but this doesn't even happen that often -- this constant fluctuation of science is a myth perpetrated by creationists, the media, and general ignorance. This myth powers much of the anti-science attitude that powers many movements.
Art science is the aspect within certain sciences, like Paleontology, that isn't actually science, isn't treated as science, but is perceived as science by those outside of the community. This misinformed perception allows those who prey on the "holes" in scientific theories to devalue and discredit these areas of science in the eyes of those who are outside or have no real interest. For instance, a rendering of a new dinosaur, or even many old ones, based on single sections of bones. The science doesn't recognize these renderings as 100% accurate depictions of a creature, but use them as models for explaining aspects of the field. Those outside, however, accept these renderings as accurate depictions; when those depictions change, they question the entire field.
Fourthly, there are those who use areas of science, primarily theoretical science, or science that is otherwise extremely difficult for a layman to understand, as a basis for their scientifically inept bullshit (see: "What the Bleep" series).
All of that damages the reputation, or confuses the nature, of science to those outside the community and those with no interest in the community or the field. All of that really makes conversation rough, at times, with certain people.
The problems you have with science, like the 300 papers being stricken from the journalistic record, are things that strengthen my comfort with it as a working machine. I can;t even fathom how that could be taken as a negative. Yes, there is corruption; do you know how we know that? Peer-review. The review articles go through to be published is not the same kind of review they'll be subjected to once published -- the deception won't last long. If people start noticing too many inconsistencies in too many published papers, that journal's going to be called into investigation. I see no problem.
