To what extent to you believe in Non-scientific viewpoints/theories? And to what extent to you disbelieve scientific opinion?

Danielle Shanley 2399

Well, I can't comment on big bang theory and such....I can't wrap my brain around concepts that abstract and complicated (but ask me how to toilet train a toddler and I can break that down for you with amazing precision, acuracy, and with almost 100% success...we all have our strenghts I guess LOL ).

My answer to your question is simple:

I believe in both! I believe that science has given us soooo much! and i believe that there are things out there that science can't explain (yet). I believe that the power of the mind brought us the Scientific Process....and that is it capable of so much more (maybe phycic abilities...maybe not). So I don't discount such things....but I don't live my life with such beliefs as a basis for my choices.

It's a simple answer...but that is where I am on the subject. I'll have my hubby read the other posts and see what he thinks (he's not a fan of "string theory" either). See what he has to say on the subject....as he is much more knowlegable in this area.

Joseph Morgan 2400

JOE?!? Who's this JOE!?! ;-)
(I hate that name - for one reason - when referring to the "average person" it is the most commonly used one - Joe the Plumber, Joe Q. Public, Joe Schmo, Joe Six-Pack and the list goes on - I shall excuse your impertinence at present, Aaron - but do NOT allow it to happen again! :-)

I gotcha - I didn't realize you were speaking of the non-scientific theories - thanks for clarifying.

Cameron Trickey 2333

Glad you bit a little.

Hubble's Law was based only on information gathered from stars within our own galaxy. But the discovery of quasars have been showing something very different. I have yet to find out exactly what the alternate suggestion is, but when one looks at the likes of NGC 1097 and many other Seyfert type galaxies, it is apparent that the sattelite galaxies and quasars on certain occassions are part of the main galaxy as evidenced through spectral analysis, amongst other things. What becomes peculiar is the vast discrepency in red shift values of the objects. In certain cases there have been differences from 6,000 kms a sec upto 180,000 kms a sec between a galaxy and its 'attached' quasar. How can two different objects be moving at such vastly different speeds yet still be attached?

It has, in the past, shaken the science community enough that in the case of NGC 4319, they actually doctored the photo and published an article to reassure the science community that everything was still as it should be. As far as I understand they have still not retracted that publishing despite its fabrication and being found out. Someone out there seems worried.

As for CMB radiation, my apologies as I was a little off on my temp, but it was George Gamows prediction of CMB radiation that was the final prediction before it was found. He actually predicted it at 50 degrees kelvin, but funnily enough it will take you a little bit of research to find this massive mistake, the likes of wiki putting his prediction down at 5 degrees (without reference). In fact his student had made a 5 degree prediction but Gamows made an adjustment and his 50 degrees was proposed. I always love how they like to leave these things out of the mainstream.

Main contention with standard cosmology though... I do not believe that we've got everything right and worked out all these answers in just 100 years. The problem is we created the big bang theory. Now we try to make everything, at any cost, fit into that theory. Even if it means inventing an imaginary substance that cannot be seen or detected, yet makes up over 80 % of the universe (dark energy). Science has slipped into protecting old beliefs rather than changing when we discover new things. Our greatest scinetists, long since burried (or hung, burnt at the stake and so on) would be ashamed at our scientific community today... of that I'm sure!

And a point to add, because I have nothing better to do! What I find most enjoyable is the willingness and conviction we the lay people have in our acceptance of what we are told. One has to stray away from the standard to see the alternates. You don't have to accept them, but at least open your mind a little, for the models we accept we couldn't even begin to understand. I have heard many a time from scientists that we don't even know what we don't know. Even when you merely accept what you understand, you are not even scratching the surface of what is going on.

Don't mean to be a downer, but never forget that he who thinks he knows, doesn't know!

Melissa Merritt 2399

WORD to "racism and prejudices" I did a paper about a year ago on this "scientific" IQ experiment that rounded decimals UP for Whitey and down for Black subjects, obviously an embarrassing attempt to "discover" that white ppl are the smartest. Of course the "results" were similar to the equally embarrassing claims of The Bell Curve, but not done by the same ppl...sure, it was "olden days," (50s/60s) but the results of the experiment are used today, every time someone claims intelligence is entirely genetic, because that experiment is still the largest source for that claim.

(I'll try and hunt up the paper, cause I can't remember the "scientist's" name for the life of me, and now it's starting to bug me!)

Aaron Young 2263

Sorry Joe, I meant to mention that both of the bottom statements are applicable only to non-scientific theories... most scientific theories made by persons with an unstable history or living in a time where the theory represents a majority opinion (there's a more fitting word than opinion) can be easily debunked and include prejudices or bias that are easily seen over time which invalidate the theory. The information age we are in today has created a people too smart to believe just any scientific or non-scientific theory without proper evidence and logic... not just anybody can come up with theories any more, proper credentials are required, as well, racism and prejudices really don't penetrate the scientific community as it used to (which makes more of a difference than one might think).


*****************************************************
Yeah, the internet does let just any joe on any drug or some mental illness utilize the publicity of the internet to throw out a theory... however, I also think that people need approach this was much more skepticism than they do. It's not that hard to edit a video and put a UFO in the sky or edit a picture to show some kid in bed with his dog (of course, the reality of the scene needs to carefully edited).

Cameron Trickey 2333

For scientific theory I am a non believer (over recent years) of a large portion of standard cosmology. I do not believe that the universe was created in a fiat lux from a singulairty. Shit the guy who coined the term big bang (Sir Fred Hoyle) was one of its biggest opponents and the person that liked the name and made it so wide spread (Georges Lemaitre), was not only a cosmologist and physicist but also a roman catholic priest. I have for many years had issue with the big bang because it is no different to believing in a creationist view, and it seems nicely appropriate that the theory sticks on account of a catholic priest as it can leave room for a creator.

Dark matter and energy are ridiculous, red shifts do not work the way we think (as in it is not simply the speed at which something is moving away from us) and cosmic microwave background radiation is not proof of the big bang, but rather a figure that can be put into a model. In fact the big bang theorists were miles off in their predicition, the last predicition before finding out being at over 20 degrees kelvin when it turned out to be 2.7 degrees (which I can assure you is a massive discrepency).

Black holes are also thrown into this group of make believe.

I believe in global climate change and cyclical patterns there of, but do not buy into the whole CO2 global warming bs. Feel free to get pissy and think I am irresponsible, but I am far more aware of the environment and the need for change than most, and actually do my part to minimise my impact. How many here shower with a bucket to collect the water as it heats up and throw that water on their garden? Grow your own organic veg? Collect your rain water? Compost? What are you driving these days? Walk to the store or drive? Do you buy your food from local producers or do you eat out of season foods that have been flown in from thousands of miles away? These are a handful of the small things that you have no excuse not to take part in, and if everyone did it, it would make a huge change. And it's not about being a tree hugger or some dumb shit, it's about starting to be aware of what you do.

Point is there are many things we need to change, and it's not about the CO2 we pump out, but the whole impact we have on our environment. WE've all seen the stoopid hockey stick graph, but can someone please find me the graph that shows our destruction of rainforests as we have increased our populations. And it's a no brainer that cutting down that many trees effects the weather patterns.

As for non-scientific, first off I don't believe in creationism. As for what I do believe in, in this area, it's always hard to say. Funding doesn't get thrown their way in the same manner as it does the mainstream so it takes a lot longer to find the answers and there are many people to upset when they do. We can write all this shit off if we like, but lets not forget how recently our non scientific believers were persecuting those that said we actually went around the sun.

I do believe that our ancient history has been entirely distorted and that we are now finding out answers that fit nicely with old beliefs. At the tiniest level, everything is made of energy, or waves. A thought is energy and that wave will move out into the world around us. Collectively I do think that we can influence things with the mind. I don't think we're able to perform telekenisis, but perhaps we used to or perhaps we will learn to. If our fury friends have a sixth sense why can't we.

I here a lot of interesting things about crystals, although I have never taken part. But I am intrigued as each type of crystal has a different frequency, and so I am curious as to what effects that could have.

But most important, our brain is the most untapped resource in our world. Every drug you would ever need is produced by your brain... at the right amount and with zero side effects. Drop the pharmacy companies and use that money to understand our brains. And this also ties in with a large array of natural 'mind altering' drugs. Anything that the shamans used should be allowed to be used correctly by all. The fact that these top professors from ivy league colleges end up in south america, do some ayahuasca or some shit, and come back saying they've been talking to the gods and reaching into other realms, has to have some credence at some stage!

Sorry, way too long an answer so I'll stop!

Joseph Morgan 2400

We must also examine the man that made the theory as much as we examine the theory. -Aaron

True, but only to a point. I say that because a strict following of the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. As for unscientific "science", your statement is very valid.

Aaron Young 2263

For non-scientific:
It all depends on where the information comes from, who is saying, how they say it, what changes about it when it is said twice. The degree to which the theory has been passed down is also vital, I have a hard time believing what someone says when they were not a witness. I tend to rely most on my own life experiences and not assumptions that I can make... I wouldn't say that fighting a bear is hard because I've never done that (I wouldn't say it is easy either).

For Scientific:
I believe what I hear only if it can be understood when I hear it... sometimes that means I must hear it twice.
I believe what I see when I can understand it, sometimes after thinking about it for a long, long time, and other times when it makes sense right away.
I am generally neutral with it until it makes sense or does not make sense.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feelings also play a role in what I feel to be believable or not.
We must also examine the man that made the theory as much as we examine the theory.

Melissa Merritt 2399

I guess I believe either one to the extent of what I like. What from it makes sense to my particular brain...and that's about it...an approach which I hardly invented ;)

and, hey, it hasn't fucked me yet soooo....yay! :)

Joseph Morgan 2400

For me, my barometer of acceptance in various theories boils down to -Is there objective empirical evidence that supports it? I am of an open mind when it comes to almost everything. Almost I say, because the theories that are backed by dogma and blind faith and contribute nothing but more questions ONLY have my contempt. (Creationism)

It 's almost a fact for me that the more someone insists that there theory is the ONLY explanation for something, the more I try to find flaws and alternate explanations. But if these things are approached SCIENTIFICALLY (if possible) or with the option of - I present this, but this is one of any numbers of ways this could have happened... I give it the benefit of the doubt.

There are theories that will not be proven or disproven in my lifetime. But I need a good reason to believe them. The things I like about science is it's objectivity and willingness to correct itself. The Big Bang is described as the BEST explanation of Universe in our PRESENT understanding. I like that. It doesn't say it is the only one, and it doesn't say it can't be changed.

As far as your non-scientific models - I tend to be quite skeptical, as I am with a lot of "way out there" scientific theories. But I am more apt to "believe" in something that science takes seriously. Up in the air about string theory - but as our abilities improve in quantum mechanics and such, I suspect I will examine them closer.

Telekinesis, morphic resonance, talking to the dead, curing cancer with crystals, homeopathy, creationism - these things have their proponents, and they are usually dogmatic, and not open to alternate explanations. All have been disproven in one way or the other. Therefore, I don't have much to embrace in these fields. BUT as for the power of the human mind - that is indisputable. It is there. WHAT it is, I haven't a clue. But there is something there.
Very interesting question.