Top 5 science scandals of 2011

[L Gilbert]

And understand what?

lmao Are you serious?
We only use it to understand part and parcel of our universe.

Did you see the study about the compassionate rats? I found it extremely amusing, because I figure if the same study was carried out on humans, one would conclude that humans have no compassion.

No. But I will look it up.

Certainly physcis has supplanted philosophy in the understanding of reality. The understanding of existence and consciousness however... I take philosophy to be non-empirical, rational inquiry by the way.

I agree.

 

[Manro_FX]

lmao Are you serious?
We only use it to understand part and parcel of our universe.

No. But I will look it up. I agree.

Now, Can you understand Universe when you are unable tounderstand your own human nature?

 

[L Gilbert]

Gentleman,

As for rats, experiments and humanity;
In the basements of Psychology Department of Stanford University,Philip Zimbardo conducted the following experiment. Creating a simulation of areal prison he placed a group of fully intellectually balanced, intelligent,randomly selected students.
By a flip of coin, Zimbardo divided the group50/50 as guardiansor as prisoners. Premises later were isolated. After only six days experimenthad to be closed.
In his own worlds:
“What we have seen was appalling and horrible…. It was nolonger clear the difference between a real person and an actor playing a role… Allhuman values learned throughout their lives were suspended… The most ugly,repelling, pathologic face of human nature took place… We were shaken by imageof ‘guardians’ treating’ prisoner’s like an animals finding pleasure in cruelty…when ‘prisoners’ became subhuman serving robots thinking only about escape, surviveand growing hate towards their ‘guardians”.

Firstly: I doubt Zimbardo used such atrocious grammar, and punctuative language, so I'd suggest if you are going to post quotes, you do so verbatim. It isn't that hard.
Secondly, what's your point?

Now, Can you understand Universe when you are unable tounderstand your own human nature?

Who said I can't understand my nature? Besides, one has nothing to do with the other in this context.

 

[Manro_FX]

Point well taken,and no Point at all.
I'm out of this forum.

 

[L Gilbert]

bye.

 

[darkbeaver]

Certainly physcis has supplanted philosophy in the understanding of reality. The understanding of existence and consciousness however... I take philosophy to be non-empirical, rational inquiry by the way.
"Don't stick your hand in fire, because it will burn," is science, and is certainly not a prosthetic.

Ah, I object to your position as pertains to physics having supplanted philosophy in the understanding of reality. The reality of matter is distinctly different in nature from the reality of mind. Science is a tool born of philosophy. Thinking can never be supplanted by physics. Not in any instance will physics supplant thinking, ever, never, can't even get close.
I actually know a man who can keep his hand in a woodstove in excess of two minutes, and it does not burn. Mind over fire is done routinely. Check it out on the net.

 

[L Gilbert]

Ah, I object to your position as pertains to physics having supplanted philosophy in the understanding of reality. The reality of matter is distinctly different in nature from the reality of mind. Science is a tool born of philosophy. Thinking can never be supplanted by physics. Not in any instance will physics supplant thinking, ever, never, can't even get close.
I actually know a man who can keep his hand in a woodstove in excess of two minutes, and it does not burn. Mind over fire is done routinely. Check it out on the net.

You missed the part where he said, "I take philosophy to be non-empirical, rational inquiry by the way."?

 

[darkbeaver]

Oh did I miss that? Can we understand reality without non-empirical, rational inquiry?

 

[L Gilbert]

I asked you first.

 

[darkbeaver]

No miss I just think before I measure. However you do it is fine with me.

 

[L Gilbert]

No miss I just think before I measure. However you do it is fine with me.

Then you missed his point. He could have added the word "physical" to his comment stating "Certainly physcis has supplanted philosophy in the understanding of reality." and said instead that certainly physics has supplanted philosophy in the understanding of physical reality. But that, I think, is why he added that "The understanding of existence and consciousness however... I take philosophy to be non-empirical, rational inquiry by the way."
IOW, he is quite right that science has supplanted philosophy in determining how our universe works, how it affects us, etc. There's a lot less mysticism, junk. and other philosophical issues involved than there used to be simply because we don't think (or most of us anyway) gods, leprechauns, and gremlins cause fire, weather, gravitational pull, etc.

 

[The Old Medic]

This is exactly why ALL research must be vetted, and when it can not be, it MUST be challenged.

Unfortunately, the media is partly responsible for this problem, because it loves to trumpet "research" that may not amount to anything at all. And Universities contribute to this, with their "publish or perish" policies. Faculty MUST publish research, or they simply can not remain on the faculty and they do not gain tenure.

 

[Tonington]

This is exactly why ALL research must be vetted, and when it can not be, it MUST be challenged.

Who should do the vetting, and how do you think it should be challenged? Research is already vetted and challenged, this is just me challenging your vague suggestions.