The following post is from 30bananas a day online forum (now discontinued).
This video might offend some people.
You have been warned.
It’s not about nutrition but I think it is a good video to watch to understand something that comes up here quite a lot: good science vs junk science.
this is a very hilarious, intelligent and refreshing debate between
neuroscientist Sam Harris & mr.skeptic Michael Shermer vs king of woowoo Deepak Chopra & some fat lady who tells nice stories
If you still don’t know what “woowoo science” is and think that all science is the same, please watch the video.
I still have a fun time wondering how some people even stumble upon this site (or get up in the morning) without understanding the basic *and very important* fundamentals of the scientific method. My guess is they stand on very thin ice. But that’s okay because we do have sites like Rawvegantalk, Gitmr & killeachother.com (made up that last one and i hope it doesn’t exist) where we send the rejects when the ice breaks. There are even many who THINK they do and then go on to say that “science can’t explain” everything which means that they clearly don’t understand because whether science can explain everything or not is irrelevant. Science explains what it can and doesn’t make up stories for what it can’t nor pretend to know what it doesn’t. Unlike many people.
It’s also funniER how those lacking (very important and very simple/learnable) skills in critical thinking, analytical though processes (scientist or not –> i’m not) are usually the ones who defend some primitive diet bs or spiritual wishywashy nonsense (again, scientist or not –> some of them only apply their knowledge to everything but themselves hence the lack of reasoning skills and big beer bellies + bad breath caused by the rotting corpses inside them).
That said, there are those that do know their science but lack the moral integrity to discern between “F’*k the world, my own body is priority or just because i have knowledge in one area means i know everything” vs “my health is much more than just providing nutrients for MY cells and maintaining MY equilibrium”. Perhaps this is the ‘funniest’ bunch out of all. I will say that Shermer might just belong in that third category which I realized after reading his pro-Gary “Tubby” Taubes article on his newsletter… but that is an issue for a separate thread.
(oh btw, there are really no categories at all… just mind games, you know, maps to show us where to go, flashlights, etc.)
It sure is a funny world. Laughing at the madness is one my greatest and most rewarding talents. As dry humored and lacking in comedic skills as I may seem to some…
PS. i don’t disagree with everything Deepak says in other areas… like health, which is more his specialty. He’s also a great speaker and quite funny. But in this video he makes a fool out of himself.
Replies to This Discussion
Reply by Krzsztof on February 27, 2011 at 8:45pm
I find those scientists funny that believe in the universal theorem…
If the universal theorum was cracked, basically it would do to reality what physics did to industry. They believe in a mathematical formula that there’s no proof of, is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent yet they then smerk at people that believe in those very things only call it a different name.
Reply by Jack on February 27, 2011 at 8:52pm
We had a long thread on spirituality a while ago, too bad it disappeared when I happened to delete all of my previous threads. Some good input in it. Maybe we’ll redo it sometime in the future. Maybe this thread will expand into one?
God certainly has a future, as a projection of the mind of man. As Shermer says, the mind of man is set up in a way which keeps detecting patterns and seeing intentional agencies in them. It probably evolved as a survival strategy but which other elements it may or may not have expanded into we don’t really know as of yet. (Which doesn’t mean some can’t say they do know.)
There certainly is a tendency in ‘alternative’ circles to drift away from mainstream scientific research, probably at least partially due to the way much of it is financed (and, as a consequence, biased). You are quite right in pointing out that this does not render the scientific method in and by itself invalid.
However as long as the brain itself is wired the way it currently is, for whatever reason, there is little chance we’ll see a funeral of God in the foreseeable future.
Have you by any chance read Left in the Dark? Any of the research of Matti Bergström?
Reply by markus on February 27, 2011 at 10:13pm
Thanks for the comments, I like what you are saying. Especially your third paragraph. Well said.
* Left In The Dark: I have it in my bookshelf, read it a few months ago and thought it was a fascinating and well researched, elegantly expressed (if a little complex at times) hypothesis. Especially considering my own lifestyle choices =D Tomorrow I am donating it to the library so other people can read it as well.
* Matti Bergström: never heard of him before, he lives a few miles down the road to where I live, maybe I should go have a chat with him. Although his scientific expertise seems a bit too much for a simple man like myself.
Reply by Jack on February 27, 2011 at 10:21pm
I thought LiD was horribly researched, to be honest – and included far too much mythology for its own good. I did tell Tony so but I understand he is currently preoccupied otherwise and did not intend LiD to be much more than a quick draft of the ideas by and large. It raises far more questions than it answers. Good idea about donating, I have mine on the shelf as well. I could maybe donate my 80/10/10 as well, although with all the markings, people would maybe think the book is complete nonsense…
You could probably read anything on brain science, the reason I asked about dr. Bergström is from where you’re living, the chances are greater you would have heard about him. I have mainly read a bit of his writings on the implications of neurochemistry on children and education (good stuff).
Reply by markus on February 28, 2011 at 4:55am
I also initially felt that way about the constant “garden of eden” stuff but I think the questions it raises by relating those myths to the split of the brain hemispheres was something I hadn’t come across before nor thought about. btw, there is a thread about LiD on here with the author answering questions. It will be interesting to see the author’s development of his theories. I’m certainly looking forward to more research done in this area.
Can you recommend me anything specific by Bergström? I would love to read about the neurochemistry on kids/education stuff which you mentioned.
And Jack, nice to meet you.
Reply by Jack on February 28, 2011 at 7:43pm
I suppose I am a bit more ‘allergic’ to the mythology stuff, having been a Christian for the better part of my life. I agree there could be something to them but I think he should have restricted them to a more specific section. As it is, they risk to give the rest of the book a less serious character, just as his ramblings on drugs do. A bit like some of Doug Graham’s antics in 80/10/10.
Lapsi – viimeinen orjamme on hyvää luettavaa. Jos pidät siitä, Bergströmillä on muutakin luettavan arvoista materiaalia.
P.S. Mukava törmätä muihinkin suomalaisiin täällä 🙂
Reply by markus on March 2, 2011 at 5:29am
Samoin! Täytyy tsekata kirja vaikka mielummin luen englanniksi.
Yeah now that you mention it, with all the drugs stuff… the layout of the book was a bit messy. Good points man. Not sure what you mean my DG’s book though…
Reply by Rawgasm on February 27, 2011 at 9:18pm
god is the future!
Reply by markus on February 27, 2011 at 10:13pm
I really hope people who comment on this thread will take an hour of their lives to actually watch the debate posted above.
Reply by Chris P. on February 28, 2011 at 11:52pm
Interesting, thanks for posting this.
I think that the scientific method is the “most pure” way of trying to discover and learn about the world around us within our current capacity. What always has astonished me is the Science–>therefore no god AND the God –> therefore no science, stances that many who discuss/debate these types of issues seem to always fall into. I often see the God –> therefore no science folks just going off into realms of absurdity without the constraints that the scientific method would place on them. Perhaps even more surprising is when I see the Science –> therefore no god not really adhering to the scientific method while claiming to.
Scientific method does NOT prove “truth”. Scientific method only shows the likelihood or unlikelihood of a hypothesis within the constraints of the *current set of data*. So a principle is to be “commonly accepted” not “proclaimed truth”. I thin the static and linear thinking that people tend to do really constrains the bounds of thought and exploration, especially when dealing with wide and sweeping topics. Many people claim to understand something through science, when in fact they are dealing with a very high level (simplified/abstracted) set of information and in actuality, they would be hard pressed to prove with any degree of accuracy (I am just postulating for “most people” here, perhaps some do understand a process from soup to nuts, but not many) some of the smallest processes that make up the larger concept.
I’ve gone back and forth, in my own life, between dismissing people of faith as “quaint, well meaning, but not understanding” people, to knowing with 100% certainty that I had a direct pipeline to God and knew what “the deal” was and that the scientific folks were unknowingly “working for the other side”. I believe that’s because my thinking was too rigid and also life had not beaten me up enough yet 🙂
When I get done with my work-work (which I should be doing now) I look forward to seeing more of the debate, but I don’t expect any conclusions, I rarely see any in such exercises. However, I do often enjoy getting a better idea of how other people view such things and it often helps shed some light on my own thought processes.
Just one more thought before spending my day frustrated with work, LOL! 🙂 I find a TON of debate ends up not being about coming to a deeper understanding or getting at the truth. It far too often ends up becoming an emotional exercise in “proving the other guy wrong” which may have some small side benefits, but rarely seems to “make progress” . What I love seeing, is healthy debate where both sides bring all their toys to the table and each is able to concede to the other when appropriate. But if each side simply dismisses the other entirely, I’m not so interested in that. I want the Science folks to leave the table happy with their Science and the God folks to leave the table happy with their God. If each side also has a new found respect for the other and finds it enhances their own understanding? Then that debate was fantastic!
Reply by Jack on February 28, 2011 at 11:58pm
Too bad the previous spirituality thread is gone, you had it all there – plenty of really good input trying to get at the truth and decent amounts of defence and attack on both sides. Overall, very juicy.
Hmm. Mark is still around, Ste pops in now & then but I haven’t seen Robert in a decent while…
Reply by markus on March 2, 2011 at 5:34am
Great post Chris.
Yeah, I think you will find the rest of the debate very worthy of your time.
But does something get resolved as you describe in an ideal debate? No, LOL.
I think the q&a in the end does however put some interesting cards on the table.
I personally have never found a need to believe in god and I think people who do, are just afraid of uncertainty. I love not knowing. It makes knowing meaningful.
