Science leads folk to God!

[D'rok]

Thread re-titled for accuracy:

Pseudoscience leads folks to God!

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm not quite like this. I want what ever is real to be real, regardless of what it is. I don't specifically want ghosts to be real, but if reality includes ghosts, then so be it. It doesn't seem to, but of course, I don't know.

I meant more like super powers and stuff. Or, maybe it is just me?

 

[Wowbagger]

The experiment, which has been repeated and verified many times, shows that skin conductance consistently rises at least 3 seconds before subjects are shown an unpleasant image, but not before they see a nice one.

I have read a bit about this experiment. I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no supernatural element, here. There is, on the contrary, strong evidence that the brain does NOT know about the unpleasant image before it is shown. It only demonstrates that parts of our brain react to its appearance, a little bit before we are consciously aware that we are seeing the image. In other words, there is an automatic reaction, before a conscious one. Kind of like how your hand recoils, when you touch a hot stove.

It is an experiment that demonstrates various aspects of how the mind evolved, the theory being that different parts developed for different purposes, which then got entangled in other purposes, etc. Kind of like a Swiss Army Knife, but you have to imagine some of the tools merging slightly with some of the others, so the analogy is not perfect.

But, the bottom line is: Skepticism and science got the explanation covered. So, no one has to "go back to God" with this one.


ETA: It occured to me that we might bwe thinking of different experiments!! See comments in my next post, below.

 

[Jimbo07]

I meant more like super powers and stuff. Or, maybe it is just me?

I only decided to fully focus on what is real in the last decade or so... It gave me more power to do actual stuff than I had ever imagined! I finally understand what overachievers accomplish and wish I'd been one when I was younger, rather than pining over magick and superpowers. My real question is, what should I do next?

 

[Nucular]

It only demonstrates that parts of our brain react to its appearance, a little bit before we are consciously aware that we are seeing the image. In other words, there is an automatic reaction, before a conscious one. Kind of like how your hand recoils, when you touch a hot stove.

Wowbagger, sounds interesting - but it's astounding (if entirely plausible given the state of most psi research methodology) that the researchers would consistently get the timings wrong between physiological measure and stimulus (if that's the explanation of your criticism - i.e., that where stimulus selection and stimulus display are recorded on the physiological measure readout must be incorrect). Could you explain a little further? I haven't come across that criticism before.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

I'm afraid the only evidence provided by the show is that Horizon has fallen victim to the dumbing-down virus.

 

[JoeEllison]

I only decided to fully focus on what is real in the last decade or so... It gave me more power to do actual stuff than I had ever imagined! I finally understand what overachievers accomplish and wish I'd been one when I was younger, rather than pining over magick and superpowers. My real question is, what should I do next?

I wouldn't call it "pining", exactly, but I think it is what leads many of us to achieve real things in our lives, once we realize that the closest we're ever going to get to the fantastical is through hard work, effort, and knowledge of the real sort. I've learned so much in my life by being inspired by something fictional, and then going and learning whatever real basis might exist(or not) behind the special effects and tricks.

I know it is difficult for many people to make the jump from "what if" to "what is"... but it is worth it every time.

 

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger, sounds interesting - but it's astounding (if entirely plausible given the state of most psi research methodology) that the researchers would consistently get the timings wrong between physiological measure and stimulus (if that's the explanation of your criticism - i.e., that where stimulus selection and stimulus display are recorded on the physiological measure readout must be incorrect). Could you explain a little further? I haven't come across that criticism before.

Actually, it just occured to me that we might be thinking of different experiments!

The experiments I was refering to, are documented in some of Daniel Dennet's books (such as Consiousness Explained, which is rather difficult to follow, the first time through), and possible Susan Blackmore's material. I think Shermer might have refered to it in Mind of the Market, at one point, but I will have to look up the reference.

I suspect the experiment the OP is refering to might be a psi thing that was not properly controlled.

 

[Mercutio]

I have read a bit about this experiment. I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no supernatural element, here. There is, on the contrary, strong evidence that the brain does NOT know about the unpleasant image before it is shown. It only demonstrates that parts of our brain react to its appearance, a little bit before we are consciously aware that we are seeing the image. In other words, there is an automatic reaction, before a conscious one. Kind of like how your hand recoils, when you touch a hot stove.

It is an experiment that demonstrates various aspects of how the mind evolved, the theory being that different parts developed for different purposes, which then got entangled in other purposes, etc. Kind of like a Swiss Army Knife, but you have to imagine some of the tools merging slightly with some of the others, so the analogy is not perfect.

But, the bottom line is: Skepticism and science got the explanation covered. So, no one has to "go back to God" with this one.


ETA: It occured to me that we might bwe thinking of different experiments!! See comments in my next post, below.

Wowbagger, sounds interesting - but it's astounding (if entirely plausible given the state of most psi research methodology) that the researchers would consistently get the timings wrong between physiological measure and stimulus (if that's the explanation of your criticism - i.e., that where stimulus selection and stimulus display are recorded on the physiological measure readout must be incorrect). Could you explain a little further? I haven't come across that criticism before.

If these are the experiments I think they are, Wowbagger's explanation is not right. As Nucular implies, this would mean that the researchers are flawed in their timing, and that is really a stretch.

Actually, the explanation is much simpler, and it is an experimental artifact. Yes, the physiological response does begin before the unpleasant stimulus. But--and this is important--this physiological response is a summed response, in order to factor out "noise", of many many trials. What is happening is a failure of randomization (actually, this is my hypothesis; it does fit the pattern of results, and it is completely testable, given access to the original data); over the course of the experiment (and it would increase as trials continued), the subject learns that the longer it has been since the last unpleasant pic, the more likely it is that the next one will be unpleasant.

To the extent that the series of pics were not truly random (in which case, over trials of this length, there should have been sets of 2, 3, or 4 unpleasant pics in a row, for instance, and seeing one unpleasant pic would not act as a signal that the next one (or next few) would not be unpleasant), they are somewhat predictable. This predictability need not be consciously felt, either; good experimental evidence shows classical conditioning effects in the absence of conscious awareness. The passage of time acts as a signal that an unpleasant picture is more probable, and a given unpleasant pic acts as a signal that the next pic (or few) will not be unpleasant. That experimental artifact (and again, it is completely testable given access to the data) would be sufficient to explain the anticipatory physiological arousal without any reference to precognition.

So... not precognition. Simple classical conditioning. Those who do not remember their behaviorism are condemned to be corrected by it.

 

[sophia8]

Actually, it just occured to me that we might be thinking of different experiments!

The experiments I was refering to, are documented in some of Daniel Dennet's books (such as Consiousness Explained, which is rather difficult to follow, the first time through), and possible Susan Blackmore's material. I think Shermer might have refered to it in Mind of the Market, at one point, but I will have to look up the reference.

I suspect the experiment the OP is refering to might be a psi thing that was not properly controlled.

I think it was probably Dean Radin's presentiment experiments. One of the posters in that thread points out the flaws.

ETA: Mercutio explained it even better.

 

[epeos76]

Nucular's post 38 links to an article both describing the experiminents and giving an explanation for the result that doesn't require the ability to see into the future.

Although I have no idea what this experiment has to do with belief in god, I think it deservedly drew attention. If the design flaw suggested in the article is correct, the expected results are eminently reproducable and are independent of many of the usual culprits in paranormal research.

 

[Jimbo07]

the closest we're ever going to get to the fantastical is through hard work, effort, and knowledge of the real sort. I've learned so much in my life by being inspired by something fictional,

We've been saying similar things, but I like what I've quoted here, best.

I will add that hard work can achieve the nearly impossible, and genuine knowledge can realize the seemingly magical.

I know it is difficult for many people to make the jump from "what if" to "what is"... but it is worth it every time.

agreed...

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Many of you will be aware of limited pre-cognition from your everyday life, for example by the common experience of knowing who is calling on the phone before you answer.

This is proof? It is called coincidence. We can predict who is calling because the same people usually do call us, and usually they call at the same time. On Sunday night the phone rings I know it is my sister, how do I know, because my sister usually calls on Sunday nights. If it hadn't been my sister I would have simply forgotten about getting it wrong, the next time the phone rings the chances are pretty good it will be my sister. I only get maybe one call on Sunday night so the odds are really really good it will be her.

This can be tested.

If all have this limited ability, its doesn’t take much imagination to conclude that certain rare folk may be blessed with the gift to look further into the future and bring more of what they see into conscious awareness. In other words – prophets like Isaiah from the bible.

Why Isaiah? Why not all Joseph Smith? Why not L.Ron Hubbard? Who chooses who was right. The Bible was a book written by men, who wanted to show they were right, so maybe they just said that Isaiah predicted events to come.

It is quite a leap to say that ALL have this LIMITED ability, just from one TV show you saw. Are you that easily influenced?

Gallup polls show that belief in the supernatural is rising across the West.

And what does this prove? Even if it were true (which I doubt) it means what? What do you mean by supernatural? Is Santa Claus supernatural? Are you including God(s) in that?

Science like the above is causing belief to rise faster among the more higher education one has – Google "higher education fuels stronger belief in ghosts" to see a study demonstrating this.

Education will always dispel sceptical myths.

Skeptical myths? What does that mean?

As some of you already know, many who pretend to be sceptics really are not. They dishonestly doctor evidence from their own experiments to cover up results that point to the supernatural. Google “CSICOP” (now CSI) and go to the wikki entry for example.

I suppose you have proof of this cover-up do you? You do understand how science works, right? I also find it insulting for you to say that some of us (meaning ME) are "pretend skeptics" Who do you think you are? Them are fighting words.

Some of these pseudoskeptics are as spiritually aware as us Christians - I see no need to spell it out but there are reasons why certain prizes are never claimed.

Well I don't want to be the one to mention your bad spelling because I am not so great at times. But I think you have a Superman complex, leaping tall buildings with giant leaps of illogic. If you have evidence that tests were faked we want to see it.

Happily pseudoskeptics do not control main stream science or media. To those of you who are truly open minded – check out the science! It can cleanse you of your unbelief. Then you will be able to pray to Jesus with an open heart and know the love of God. Things will be so much better then!

I think someone is so open minded his/her brain just fell out.

To those of you who are committed to scepticism regardless of the evidence, you have my respect for getting your message across so well despite the overwhelming evidence that the supernatural exists. But im sorry skeptics, you’re fighting a war you’ve already lost.

Excuse me but since when is proof of the supernatural proof of your Jesus God?

susan

 

[doctoratlantis]

Some great science was shown this Tuesday on Great Britain’s BBC. If you go the BBCs web site you can still watch the whole programme, just search for Horizon and watch the Feb 12 2008 show.

Sadly, this can only be viewed if you're in the UK. We don't pay our BBC tax stateside, so they won't let us watch for free.

Many of you will be aware of limited pre-cognition from your everyday life, for example by the common experience of knowing who is calling on the phone before you answer.

I have caller-id. Does that count?
Seriously, though: I've got about 10 people who regularly call me (1 or more times per week) - and two of them call me about 80% of the time. So if I guess who's calling me how could that be paranormal when there is a huge statistical liklihood I'll just guess it correctly?

Education will always dispel sceptical myths.

You don't know what scepticism is. It isn't a collection of "myths" - it is a methodology for how you examine the world you live in. True sceptics examine the evidence and use critical thinking skills to evaluate claims.

Also, just for the record, education doesn't dispel anything. You can get a shoddy education and learn all sorts of horrendously incorrect things.

Happily pseudoskeptics do not control main stream science or media. To those of you who are truly open minded – check out the science! It can cleanse you of your unbelief. Then you will be able to pray to Jesus with an open heart and know the love of God. Things will be so much better then!

The science on prayer hasn't been all that good for Jesus.

To those of you who are committed to scepticism regardless of the evidence, you have my respect for getting your message across so well despite the overwhelming evidence that the supernatural exists. But im sorry skeptics, you’re fighting a war you’ve already lost.

1) You don't seem to know what scepticism is.
2) I'm sorry you're overwhelmed by the supernatural.
3) There is no war against the supernatural, but there is a hell of a fight to promote rational thinking in a world where the principal media outlets promote the paranormal because it is easy ratings.

 

[billydkid]

billy da kid
The most succint definition is that God is Love. Humans are made for love, God's love most of all.
God is also the creator of the natural world.

So, from your description I have to assume this God you are referring to is a wholly different entity from the one described in the Hebrew and Christian "Holy" books.

 

[CrikeyBobs]

Some great science was shown this Tuesday on Great Britain’s BBC. If you go the BBCs web site you can still watch the whole programme, just search for Horizon and watch the Feb 12 2008 show.

I watched that Horizon programme when it was originally broadcast and didn't rate it as one of the more serious episodes (formula for determining the chance of scoring with a chick, I ask you ). Interestingly I switched away when the prediction segment came on.

So I just watched that segment online and it was rather short on evidence: squiggly blue line and squiggly red line on a chart being interpreted as evidence of sensing the future. My initial thought was that Radin could just as easily have said that the experimental subject was able to influence the computer to display an emotional or unemotional image. Either interpretation seems just as valid from what I saw.

One factoid that he stated was "[in quantum physics] the direction of time for elementary particles doesn't matter." Now I know little about QM but I seem to recall that time reversal had something to do with anti-particles and that only the photon (being its own anti-particle) could just as reasonably be said to be moving backwards in time as forwards.

Anyway, as Alice Shortcake mentioned in an earlier post, Horizon is considerably dumbed-down these days.

 

[~enigma~]

common experience of knowing who is calling on the phone before you answer.

Always happens to me but it's not supernatural. It's called caller ID

BTW, about the rest of you post...

 

[Olowkow]

This (the OP) is so wrong that I'm wondering if he's a sock of Doc.

also, second Darat's lament about another debate about the nature of "true" skeptics.

Different spelling error pattern...unless Doc has been reading the science of forensic linguistics.

 

[fuelair]

Hi thatsoundagain. Fair comment I should have said psuedo-sketicism - the affectation of skepticism when really you are close minded or perhaps even belief but are determined to push a certain worldview beacause you think it is for the best, or as it serves your own selfish purposes, or even as you an agent of powers hostile to Christ.

You do make enemies quickly don't you!!Atheists do not see any evidence for Satan,etc. either. But you keep it up!!
It is educational though how much you characters fear being without your little grey guy in the sky!!!

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

fuelair, thanks for quoting that. I missed the second reply and, if not for you, would never have known that I'm an "agent of powers hostile to Christ"! How deLynch gets that from my terse, pedantic contribution is beyond me, but hey, that's kind of a cool title in its own incoherent way.