Hacker irked by reincarnation
tech.blog.aknin.name
tech.blog.aknin.name
That's a fair criticism of the current scientific community, but I suspect that nothing can be done about it without huge cultural changes, at least in the U.S.
Strong refutation of someone's research would require a great deal of research and resources. For that work to become notable in the scientific community, it would typically be supported either by a university or by a respected private organization.
In the university environment, a researcher would be strongly advised against pursuing topics like the investigation of the paranormal. They would be warned that they would be jeopardizing their career; they should go and work instead on some other subject, especially something that's a current hot topic that might lead to some solid funding.
In private industry, if there isn't any money to be made from it, it won't be pursued.
It's not altogether unlike the startup community. I have trouble imagining YC accepting a team that seriously proposed to develop, say, an entirely new operating system from scratch (unless perhaps it was already half complete, and that would be cheating in this case). "Who would use it?" "How will you make money?" "You seem like a great team, why don't you do X instead?"
There seems to be very little space available right now for people who want to devote lots of resources to pursuing something for curiosity's sake.
But it doesn't make sense to advocate funding these ventures. The people who are motivated purely by curiosity will by definition not be motivated by funding. No amount of funding would produce a second Linux. In fact, too much funding might have distracted Linus into working on something else instead.
If you're really passionate about something, you figure out how to do it. Maybe you moonlight, or do it part-time, maybe you save up for a few years and cash out. But I think any software developer who feels that he cannot pursue a software project because of lack of funding needs either a reality check or a career change.
The "3 year degree". When I finished my three year Science degree I looked back on my time not with pride but rather disdain and anger. I felt like the work I had done to achieve the piece of paper my degree was written on did not warrant three years of my life. I felt like if the university gave me the opportunity, I could have completed my degree in a year, with full time or over time studying. That being said I had the luxury of living in a country with free or freeish education. Don't even get me started on PhDs and postdocs.
Science funding: While science is supposed to be impartial, illuminating and free for all it sadly isnt. Pharmaceutical companies pay big money to get results that allow them bring drugs on the market. I'm not suggesting there methods are corrupt, far from it, but the fact that they have a vested financial interest in results steers there line of thinking so that any scientific discoveries that arn't beneficial to drug x are shelved. PhD students who are supported with financial grants are also impended by NDA paperwork and a wall of patent/commercial impediments.
The point I'm making is that It's not suprising people lose faith in science when they start to look beyond the superficial layers. Science is difficult, confusing and complicated but It's also essential, It's also wonderful and It's also fundamental for human society. The problem though (at least it appears to me) is that in many ways there is a huge disconnect between cutting edge science/peer review articles and the general public. I've been thinking about what to do to plug that gap and make science more accessible to people without requiring 5 years of studying but thats another story all together.
I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent without a shred of observable evidence?
> Science is difficult, confusing and complicated.
Science is cherry pie compared to trying to appease some mystical, invisible, unobserable, unknowable, all-powerful, imaginary god.
I mean this is exactly the issue I'm talking about. My religious beliefs do not impede my scientific work, so why do people get so bothered about it?
Thousands of scientists throughout history have been conducting experiments while simultaneously holding a belief in God.
To take an example from our own industry, how do you feel about Donald Knuth. Do you discount his work because of his faith?
>...without a shred of observable evidence?
We all make presuppositions. You assume that your senses are basically reliable. You make this assumption because it is useful, and without it everything you do would be meaningless--yet you have absolutely no way to prove it.
Each of us makes assumptions about the nature of the universe. You have no right to judge someone else because you believe your presuppositions are less ridiculous than his.
Furthermore, just because an assertion (e.g. "there is a God") cannot be proven (or disproven) does not mean it should be free from scrutiny. The claim that one has "no right to judge" a belief due to lack of evidence is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Lack of evidence is a perfectly valid reason to be skeptical.
There are two presuppositions you compare: "I think, therefore I am" and "There is a God." Both require at least a very fundamental assumption, but only one has any basis in what we might typically refer to as "evidence."
I never said it did. Did you read post I was responding to? I was attacking the premise that one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God with the evidence that there have been many scientists who believed in God.
In fact your sentence here:
>It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact
is exactly my argument.
>Furthermore, just because an assertion (e.g. "there is a God") cannot be proven (or disproven) does not mean it should be free from scrutiny.
Never said it should be free from scrutiny. I have no problem with you criticizing my beliefs. What I do have a problem with is the OP asserting that my beliefs make me a poor scientist. And the very specific assumption that belief in God renders one unable to perform scientific inquiry. You seem to agree with me, as does the evidence.
>There are two presuppositions you compare: "I think, therefore I am" and "There is a God." Both require at least a very fundamental assumption, but only one has any basis in what we might typically refer to as "evidence."
Two options to explain the beginning of the universe and why it doesn't violate causality.
A. Causality came into existence with the beginning of the universe and so was never violated.
B. An eternal God exists separate from the universe he created
There is absolutely no physical way to prove either one. Which one is simpler or more likely is completely subjective.
You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence.
Your other point:
> "You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence."
Whoever said I chose camp A? This line of reasoning excludes the possibility of an option C (or D, E, F, etc). Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are shifting the burden of proof and appealing to ignorance. ("There is no proof, therefore they are both equally subjective.")
How about, instead, "there is no proof, therefore we don't know or claim to know." Seems more rational than any of the other options, at least to me.
(Sure, nobody's 100% rational, so we could keep picking these arguments apart all night. I'm happy to agree on a simple "we don't know" for anything not empirically based on the evidence of the senses.)
B. An eternal God exists separate from the universe he created
I think the issue that most skeptics have with "B", is not that it is being presented as a possible explanation to the existence of the universe as you have written here, but that there are folks that say they know and talk to this dude, and he tells them we need to pay their organization money (or fill in whatever other ridiculous religious dogma you want here).
Human beings believe things without a shred of credible evidence all the time. In fact, taking things on faith is a valuable, even vital intellectual short-cut that allows us to get on with doing stuff without having to work out every detail of our lives from first principles all the time.
I happen to believe that this explains belief in god, i.e. that it's an intellectual short-cut that allows societies to construct functional moral and social frameworks that historically have served a valuable purpose. Frameworks that nowadays are not so valuable because we now have well worked out philosophies of life and morality that render divine fiat unnecessary to leading a healthy, productive and satisfying life. I see religious as being a vestigial social construct that is withering away as it's nolonger required.
However I am also very much aware that I still use all sorts of intellectual short-cuts and assumptions every day. Anyone who thinks human beings are inherently rational logical beings is IMHO delusional. We are primarily emotional, instinctual beings overlayed with thin layer of self awareness and congnition.
Therefore I think there's plenty of scope for sensible people to adhere to religious belief systems if they so choose, as long as they don't expect special rights and privileges for doing so. But can we all agree to at least be civil about it?
In my opinion, one of those widely regarded "special rights" is the right to make unfalsifiable claims without being challenged. Scepticism is widely viewed as an "attack" on the safety-zone we call "faith," when in reality it is simply what it is: someone pointing out logical flaws. It's not their fault if we take it personally because we believe our beliefs should be free from sceptics.
But, of course, it helps to not be an ass about it too.
The point is exactly as you say, just because you have faith you don't get any privileges. I and many others cannot understand how one can bring the empiricism inherent to science in accordance with the irrationality of faith. (And I don't use irrational as an insult here, I just mean that faith isn't based on a rational basis). It's not attacking for finding that incredulous.
I think of myself as a scientist and a rational person, yet I believe in some form of an immortal soul, or at least that the mind is not physical. I absolutely don't feel like I should be free from scepticism and even if I did I wouldn't feel attacked if someone questioned my "faith".
EDIT: A single downvote and no reply. That means I'm right, right?
If a known liar and drug addict tells you that he have this theory, and proceed to make rational arguments for it, ignoring him just because of his reputation isn't very scientific.
FWIW, Knuth (yes, that one) is fairly religious. Anyone want to claim that he's stunted? Be sure to include supporting evidence.
For example, does it matter at all to a particle physicist? How about a chemist? How about materials science?
Newton thought that he'd be remembered as an alchemist....
It irritates you because you take it personally. I understand religion plays an important role in your life I really do, but to a nonbeliever one belief without evidence is just like the next. I would also be suspicious if I met a physicist who used Ouija boards. I'd tell him -- and you and the guy referred to in the article -- to collect evidence & write up a convincing argument to a skeptical audience instead of complaining. There are too many weird beliefs around. If we tried to disprove this stuff there wouldn't be time for anything else.
Can someone please tell me what the science is here? Because my brain is melting reading this "research".
Lets say re-incarnation actually existed....what would its evidence possibly be then anyways?
Astavarka Gita : - https://docs.google.com/open?id=1IJWnCEJupB1VHxyheLwnvsnMzxq...
Raja Yoga :- https://docs.google.com/open?id=1b9b6uO51isx8fKfuvDC_ftvaatE...
Tao Te Ching :- https://docs.google.com/open?id=1NbIyjE_phiigwpR-jRlOc0u_n1-...
The above books are not directly related to reincarnation.
On reincanation you can read "tibetan book of the dead"
Science, currently, has no way to "prove" reincarnation because its current paradigm cannot support a way for reincarnation to work. Lukcily, we don't need science to prove EVERYTHING to know that something's true or false ;)
If they are correct, let’s research this more. If they are not, let’s have a proper refute and be done with it. If their research and methodology are ‘so flawed as not to be worthy of a proper refute’, why does anyone publish their papers and why aren’t they promptly thrown out of their respective academic organizations?
meh. I guess I should get back to Pythoneering.
If I don't remember a past life - even in the unlikely event that it was a real thing - that wasn't me, that was someone else.
If you agree with the basic facts used to justify that, but not the conclusion, I'd appreciate any feedback. Likewise if you disagree with the whole thing. Still working on this one.
Current operating systems are like rudimentary souls, and any OS routinely uses these capabilities:
Rebooting <-> Reincarnation
Networking <-> Telepathy
USB devices <-> Extrasensory perception
Andy Tannenbaum's MINIX-3 explicitly calls rebooting as reincarnation.
Future AIs will have Thompson & Ritchie to thank for making flexible reincarnation possible for them.