Are most scientists emotionally mature adults?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I haven't read what the proponents of intelligent design have to say, but it isn't easy to define what "intelligence" and "design" mean. We say Einstein was intelligent or the P-51 Mustang was a good design, but an atheist might see them both as products of evolution like the human appendix. If Einstein had been born in 10,000 BCE, would he have seemed intelligent? If there had been no need for a long range fighter in WW2, would the P-51 have seemed so outstanding? They each found a niche where their attributes allowed propagation. Einstein propagated through his ideas and his fame. The P-51 propagated through manufacturing and fame.

It reminds me of the question of free will. Intelligent design seems to claim that outcomes are chosen in pursuit of a design goal. There must be free will for intelligent design to happen IMO.

Basically I don't care much about the science, this is about reinforcing common subjectivity. For subjectivity knowledge about how things are chosen is needed, because there is no other subjective issue except agency of decisions.

So this is about fundamental human needs, and science is horsing around with those fundamental human needs, thereby directly.causing societal catastrophies. like nazism, communism, depression epidemic, culture war, the decline of religion, and so on. Science is the catalyst in the commonly human head vs heart struggle, and they have to be held to account. No excuses, the fact is freedom is real, fact is scientists do make decisions, and fact is the results of those decisions are catastrophies.

I think the human need for subjectivity on the intellectual level is already met by having general knowledge about how choosing works, and having credibility that it is generally applicable in the universe. So the finer details of how exactly in the human brain a decision is made, how the indeterminacy at the quantum level is modulated through microtubules to get macroscopic indeterminacy, as one theory says, nobody really needs to know that to have a good life. That's just a question of liking to know it. Same thing with biology, it is of little importance exactly how humans have been chosen to be the way they are. What is significant is just that they have been chosen to be the way they are, and that the agency of those decisions is a subjective issue.

What is not acceptable is that subjective terms like love or hate, are reformulated to be objective mathematical terms by science. There should be no question whether or not love is an electrochemical process. Love is the most significant subjective term. To reformulate it as an objective mathematical term, should be regarded as trying to destroy subjectivity, the head fighting the heart.

The concepts of God and the soul, they are both also defined in terms of agency of decisions, and therefore they are proper subjective terms. But the head vs heart struggle also takes place in religion, so you will also see in religion that people try to appropiate the terms God and soul, as objective terms. Saying that it is a fact that God and the soul exists.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

So did scientists do away with intelligent design theory because it is unscientific, or did they do away with it because choosing is integral to subjectivity and the head fights the heart?

The answer to this question lays in how scientists view people's choices. If it is shown that they are also against knowledge about how people choose, then it would be more reasonable to say that scientists did away with intelligent design theory in order to do away with subjectivity.

When you look at the work of professional scientists such as neurologists, biologists, artificial intelligence professors, sociologists, then they generally all use the same definition for human choices. The definition of choosing that scientists use goes something like: choosing is to sort out the best option from the available alternatives.

First, before I respond to this excerpt from your post, allow me say that I am a scientist. I currently have my MS Degree in Astronomy and am now working on my Ph.D. I live in Flagstaff, AZ, where I am working on my Doctoral Dissertation, and I'm doing a post-grad Internship here at Mt. Lowell Observatory. I plan to take my Ph.D in Cosmology by the Spring of 2017. And will probably either work here, or possibly at the Jet propulsion Lab (JPL) in Pasadena, CA.

My Dad was an Aerospace engineer, as retired from Lockheed-Martin a few years ago. My brother is an Engineer for Lockheed, and works in the Navy's Trident Missile program. So I think I can say I have been around scientists quite a bit in my life, and know dozens right now, and have known hundreds in both academia and the private sector.

So.....regarding Intelligent Design. First of all, it's NOT a Theory. Not even close, my friend. It' s not even a Hypothesis. Oh, you will read articles written by laymen in which they refer to ID as a "theory." But please know that in Science we have far stricter standards for calling something a theory than does Joe the plumber in every day conversation. Or like when you say, "I have a theory on why my boss is such a jerk; his wife isn't; giving him any."

In science, the above would be only an idea. Pure speculation. Whereas a theory has already began as an idea, passed some basic tests and confirmations to become a "hypothesis" and then stood-up to further peer-review and positive testing to become a Theory. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

So, the vast majority of us, as you know, are Atheists or Agnostics. Also, the vast majority of us do not even give ID much credence. it is 100% totally without a shred of proof, and has never, ever passed ANY test for it's veracity. It is pure speculation, no more credible than that of god, or that Alien's seeded the Earth via "panspermia" to being life here some 3 BYA.

I have said many times that ID is merely a ruse propagated by theists in an attempt to get Creationism introduced into our Educational Curriculum. So they gussy-up their Theistic Creation with some pseudo-science and try to pass it off as a literal scientific theory. This don't fly with science guys. Nor, apparently, even with school administrators.

So when we dismiss it, like you said, we do it simply because there is no proof, Not even a hint. There is nothing to talk about. LOL. Until one of its proponents can come up with some nuance of it that can be tested or analyzed, it's about as worthy of study as god. There is no "there" there. LOL.

And scientists are not some sort of Good Ol' Boy network where we all stick together in some big Anti-Religion Conspiracy. Or anti-God. Make no mistake, few ideas are more intriguing and desirable to ANY scientist that is the possibility that one day he or she maight refute some widely-accepted theory! Or better: and actual LAW! LOL. Unlike organized religion, we have no agenda, except of course to find facts, Discern the Truth. Explain things.

We are also not "against knowledge bout how people choose" as you said. I am not even sure what you mean by that. As far as us doing away with subjectivity, well, sure, that is not a desirable facet in science. Perhaps a t first it is. But if somebody poses a subjective idea and claims it to be true, well, they better be prepared to prove it, and for it to withstand peer-review. Umm..this is kinda why it's called "SCIENCE." LOL--not "debate" or "philosophy" or "rhetoric."

You Do know what subjective means, right? It means "not proven" and "given to opinion" or "subject to personal belief or agenda." So sure, go ahead and have an opinion--we all do. But if you're gonna try and say that opinion is an Objective Fact, also be ready to defend it or have it proven wrong.

I wil now close by asking what your personal experience is with science and how many scientists you gave personally known. And also to tell me if I am incorrect in surmising that what prompted you to write your OP in the first place was that you have an opinion or belief that science has not been kind to. LOL. And since you yourself cannot prove it, a bit of frustration and discontent has set in with you.Thus your OP serves as a sort of mini-rant, or a Vent.

Thank you. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply.

 

[leibowde84]

There are so many misguided comments about scientists in that post that I'm not sure I want to take the time to correct them. Not a one of my colleagues has ever met this strange characterization you're describing here.

Please take the time ... just for the record at least.

 

[leibowde84]

There is a struggle, I didn't say it is a good thing that there is a struggle.

Your arrangement might work out if you regard love not as real, or unreal, but as "true" or "untrue". Then you can have all reality be fact only, and still have love as true or not true, and not part of reality. But that you keep on framing it in terms of struggle does not bode well for averting contradictions in your arrangement of terms. But then again, to be capable to entertain contradictory positions is also a sign of maturity.

Can you define "real" as oposed to "true"?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We are also not "against knowledge bout how people choose" as you said. I am not even sure what you mean by that. As far as us doing away with subjectivity, well, sure, that is not a desirable facet in science. Perhaps a t first it is. But if somebody poses a subjective idea and claims it to be true, well, they better be prepared to prove it, and for it to withstand peer-review. Umm..this is kinda why it's called "SCIENCE." LOL--not "debate" or "philosophy" or "rhetoric."

You Do know what subjective means, right? It means "not proven" and "given to opinion" or "subject to personal belief or agenda." So sure, go ahead and have an opinion--we all do. But if you're gonna try and say that opinion is an Objective Fact, also be ready to defend it or have it proven wrong.

Subjective means like, the rocky mountains are beautiful. You understand nothing.

 

[picnic]

Basically I don't care much about the science, this is about reinforcing common subjectivity. For subjectivity knowledge about how things are chosen is needed, because there is no other subjective issue except agency of decisions.

So this is about fundamental human needs, and science is horsing around with those fundamental human needs, thereby directly.causing societal catastrophies. like nazism, communism, depression epidemic, culture war, the decline of religion, and so on. Science is the catalyst in the commonly human head vs heart struggle, and they have to be held to account. No excuses, the fact is freedom is real, fact is scientists do make decisions, and fact is the results of those decisions are catastrophies.

I think the human need for subjectivity on the intellectual level is already met by having general knowledge about how choosing works, and having credibility that it is generally applicable in the universe. So the finer details of how exactly in the human brain a decision is made, how the indeterminacy at the quantum level is modulated through microtubules to get macroscopic indeterminacy, as one theory says, nobody really needs to know that to have a good life. That's just a question of liking to know it. Same thing with biology, it is of little importance exactly how humans have been chosen to be the way they are. What is significant is just that they have been chosen to be the way they are, and that the agency of those decisions is a subjective issue.

What is not acceptable is that subjective terms like love or hate, are reformulated to be objective mathematical terms by science. There should be no question whether or not love is an electrochemical process. Love is the most significant subjective term. To reformulate it as an objective mathematical term, should be regarded as trying to destroy subjectivity, the head fighting the heart.

The concepts of God and the soul, they are both also defined in terms of agency of decisions, and therefore they are proper subjective terms. But the head vs heart struggle also takes place in religion, so you will also see in religion that people try to appropiate the terms God and soul, as objective terms. Saying that it is a fact that God and the soul exists.

I think you have some interesting ideas. You use some words and phrases with apparently very specific definitions in your mind, but you haven't explained your definitions. An example is "agency of decisions". "Subjective" is another example. Maybe you can give examples of the meaning you intend for some of those things, and it will be clearer for discussion purposes?

Again, your idea sounds kind of interesting to me. I need to understand what you mean better and give it some thought. It seems like a subtle idea from what little I am understanding of it. I like it when people go against the normal way of thinking.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Subjective means like, the rocky mountains are beautiful. You understand nothing.

Oh really? You just confirmed what I said, Einstein. "The Rocky mountains are beautiful" IS a subjective statement. One based on personal opinion, and subject to personal likes and dislikes and bias. Like I said in my OP.

So....again, tell me what your experience is with science and scientists? And I invite you to disprove anything I claimed about how science works, that is, the Empirical Method, which is NOT subjective. You might want to look-up Empirical--it will help you understand a lot about why science doe not have any time for unfounded speculative silliness like your ID. Or organized religion like Islam or Hinduism.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

I think you have some interesting ideas. You use some words and phrases with apparently very specific definitions in your mind, but you haven't explained your definitions. An example is "agency of decisions". "Subjective" is another example. Maybe you can give examples of the meaning you intend for some of those things, and it will be clearer for discussion purposes?

Again, your idea sounds kind of interesting to me. I need to understand what you mean better and give it some thought. It seems like a subtle idea from what little I am understanding of it. I like it when people go against the normal way of thinking.

His post was totally style over substance, as he attempted, and succeeded to use a lot of purple verbosity and rhetoric to basically denigrate something he obviously has little experience with: Science. His post was most likely merely a rant against us since we do not believe in one of his very subjective or unfounded opinions of ideologies. Most likely this is something of a religious nature. Which we equate with superstition.

 

[Quintessence]

Scientists in general don't think about God and unfortunately tend to be impoverished when it comes to issues of philosophy, epistemology, or other vital aspects that are not strictly speaking scientific practices or methods but which underlie the scientific endeavor.

Although I can understand why this is not the case, I feel that the philosophy of one's discipline should be required coursework, at least at the graduate level. Folks think philosophy isn't relevant, but it is very relevant within the context of specific applications. Then again, I'm probably biased there because of personal experience.

Please take the time ... just for the record at least.

I don't like to shred people's posts, for various reasons.

Besides, other folks have done it now.

 

[Quintessence]

What is not acceptable is that subjective terms like love or hate, are reformulated to be objective mathematical terms by science. There should be no question whether or not love is an electrochemical process. Love is the most significant subjective term. To reformulate it as an objective mathematical term, should be regarded as trying to destroy subjectivity, the head fighting the heart.

Sir, I'd just like to point out to you that yes, you're correct that qualitative (or subjective) phenomena need to be quantified (or "mathematical" as you put it) in order to be analyzed by proper scientific methodology. That's how sciences must map the territory in order to be, well... science. However, it is important to remember that the map is precisely that: a map. In no way does the creation of a map destroy the fundamental essence of the territory. Both you and scientists alike are free to use other maps of the territory that describe it in different terms. There doesn't have to be just one way of interpreting reality, and it is entirely possible to operate by both scientific maps of the territory and religious ones. I do this on pretty much a daily basis.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think you have some interesting ideas. You use some words and phrases with apparently very specific definitions in your mind, but you haven't explained your definitions. An example is "agency of decisions". "Subjective" is another example. Maybe you can give examples of the meaning you intend for some of those things, and it will be clearer for discussion purposes?

Again, your idea sounds kind of interesting to me. I need to understand what you mean better and give it some thought. It seems like a subtle idea from what little I am understanding of it. I like it when people go against the normal way of thinking.

It was mostly already explained in post 1.

"In the details of it, subjectivity operates by choosing. It is equally valid to say the painting is beautiful, as it is to say the painting is ugly. The logical validity of an opinion just depends on that it is chosen. Expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing. The second detail is that all subjectivity is about agency of a decision. Saying the painting is beautiful, means to have a love for the way the painting looks. The love is agency of a decision. The existence of this love is then a matter of opinion as well. That means just as it is equally valid to say the the painting is ugly, as it is to say it is beautiful, it is also equally valid to say the love for the way the painting looks is real, as it is to say it is not real (or true love, or not true love)."

Agency is what makes a decision turn out the way it does. So if in a choice there are options A and B, and B is chosen, then the agency of the decision is what took care of it that the decision turned out B. And here you will use such terms as love, hate, soul, God, which are all terms of agency.

This is traditional and common discourse understanding how it works, not something I invented. For example religion focuses on faith, not fact. There is no evidence of the soul provided in religion. So to say the soul is defined as a subjective terms, same as beauty, love, are defined as subjective terms.

So if you consider the earth as chosen, then you are positing that in the past there was a possibility of the earth coming to be, and this possibility is made the present or not (that is what a decision is). The decision turned out that the possibility was made the present, hence there is the earth. And again, it does not matter much in terms of subjective needs, if it was one decision, or many decisions, if the decisions were independent or together, if many independent decisions came together coincedentally to form the whole eartth, at what time the decisions were made etc. etc. Simply if you conceive of the earth as being chosen, no matter which way it is chosen, then you can be subjective in regards to what the agency of those decisions is, and that's already enough room for subjectivity.

So you see that then the earth becomes to be same as expression of emotion. Same as you can say of a human being choosing something, say some dramatic life or death choice, where this person chose to save a life, where the other option was not to save it. Then you can be subjective in regards to the agency of the decision, what is in the heart, what is in the soul. You would then have to choose the answer to the question, what is in it, and regardless which answer you choose, it would be a logically valid answer.

So why was the life saved in stead of not, why is there the earth in stead of not, these are subjective issues because they are about the agency of decisions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sir, I'd just like to point out to you that yes, you're correct that qualitative (or subjective) phenomena need to be quantified (or "mathematical" as you put it) in order to be analyzed by proper scientific methodology. That's how sciences must map the territory in order to be, well... science. However, it is important to remember that the map is precisely that: a map. In no way does the creation of a map destroy the fundamental essence of the territory. Both you and scientists alike are free to use other maps of the territory that describe it in different terms. There doesn't have to be just one way of interpreting reality, and it is entirely possible to operate by both scientific maps of the territory and religious ones. I do this on pretty much a daily basis.

It's a big lie. You have to be more forthcoming to be considered honest. Scientists try to replace the subjective understanding of love as agency, with the objective understanding of it as electrochemical processes in the brain. They do not allow 2 separate understandings. This can be seen by that scientists do not use a logic that a human being can turn out several different ways, that humans have free will. Also it can be seen by that scientists discard the concept of the soul as unscientific, and then they try to tell society that the soul is not real.

Basically saying the soul is not real, is the same thing as saying beauty is not real. It is the head vs heart struggle, trying to make all into a matter of fact, and leave no subjective terms.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Oh really? You just confirmed what I said, Einstein. "The Rocky mountains are beautiful" IS a subjective statement. One based on personal opinion, and subject to personal likes and dislikes and bias. Like I said in my OP.

So....again, tell me what your experience is with science and scientists? And I invite you to disprove anything I claimed about how science works, that is, the Empirical Method, which is NOT subjective. You might want to look-up Empirical--it will help you understand a lot about why science doe not have any time for unfounded speculative silliness like your ID. Or organized religion like Islam or Hinduism.

You have to actually read what I write, and respond to what I write.

 

[Quintessence]

It's a big lie. You have to be more forthcoming to be considered honest.

I'm sorry, but your belief that I'm not being forthcoming doesn't change the fact that I am, actually, being pretty straight up with you here.

Scientists try to replace the subjective understanding of love as agency, with the objective understanding of it as electrochemical processes in the brain.

No, they don't. Neither the sciences nor scientists are trying to subvert other ways of understanding reality.

They do not allow 2 separate understandings.

Yes, they do. That working scientists must use a scientific map of the territory in their discipline does not mean they are incapable of or do not allow other understandings to be used in other aspects of their lives. They quite frankly could not function if they did.

This can be seen by that scientists do not use a logic that a human being can turn out several different ways, that humans have free will

I'm sorry, the grammar here is such that I don't understand what you're saying here.

Also it can be seen by that scientists discard the concept of the soul as unscientific, and then they try to tell society that the soul is not real.

Yes, the soul is not a scientific concept. No, scientists don't try to tell society that the soul is not real.

Basically saying the soul is not real, is the same thing as saying beauty is not real.

Except that it isn't.

It is the head vs heart struggle, trying to make all into a matter of fact, and leave no subjective terms.

This is not at all what the sciences or scientists are aiming to do.

Piece of advice. Avoid talking about the sciences or scientists as if it's some sort of hive-mind collective. This rubbish irritates me about as bad as when atheists whine about religions and religious people as if it's some sort of hive-mind collective. There may well be individual people who do what you are suggesting here. It is hardly typical, patently atypical, and so completely off-base that it boggles the mind to consider where all of these strange ideas you have about sciences and scientists came from.

 

[leibowde84]

Subjective means like, the rocky mountains are beautiful. You understand nothing.

Yes, we all agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and what not. But, how does that apply here?

 

[leibowde84]

Sir, I'd just like to point out to you that yes, you're correct that qualitative (or subjective) phenomena need to be quantified (or "mathematical" as you put it) in order to be analyzed by proper scientific methodology. That's how sciences must map the territory in order to be, well... science. However, it is important to remember that the map is precisely that: a map. In no way does the creation of a map destroy the fundamental essence of the territory. Both you and scientists alike are free to use other maps of the territory that describe it in different terms. There doesn't have to be just one way of interpreting reality, and it is entirely possible to operate by both scientific maps of the territory and religious ones. I do this on pretty much a daily basis.

This = deep.

 

[leibowde84]

It's a big lie. You have to be more forthcoming to be considered honest. Scientists try to replace the subjective understanding of love as agency, with the objective understanding of it as electrochemical processes in the brain. They do not allow 2 separate understandings. This can be seen by that scientists do not use a logic that a human being can turn out several different ways, that humans have free will. Also it can be seen by that scientists discard the concept of the soul as unscientific, and then they try to tell society that the soul is not real.

Basically saying the soul is not real, is the same thing as saying beauty is not real. It is the head vs heart struggle, trying to make all into a matter of fact, and leave no subjective terms.

Can you at least provide some specific examples of this so we all know what you are taking about?

 

[leibowde84]

I'm sorry, but your belief that I'm not being forthcoming doesn't change the fact that I am, actually, being pretty straight up with you here.



No, they don't. Neither the sciences nor scientists are trying to subvert other ways of understanding reality.



Yes, they do. That working scientists must use a scientific map of the territory in their discipline does not mean they are incapable of or do not allow other understandings to be used in other aspects of their lives. They quite frankly could not function if they did.



I'm sorry, the grammar here is such that I don't understand what you're saying here.



Yes, the soul is not a scientific concept. No, scientists don't try to tell society that the soul is not real.



Except that it isn't.



This is not at all what the sciences or scientists are aiming to do.

Piece of advice. Avoid talking about the sciences or scientists as if it's some sort of hive-mind collective. This rubbish irritates me about as bad as when atheists whine about religions and religious people as if it's some sort of hive-mind collective. There may well be individual people who do what you are suggesting here. It is hardly typical, patently atypical, and so completely off-base that it boggles the mind to consider where all of these strange ideas you have about sciences and scientists came from.

You are barking up the wrong tree, but please keep at it. Your comments are both respectful and educational.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm sorry, but your belief that I'm not being forthcoming doesn't change the fact that I am, actually, being pretty straight up with you here.
.

It's not a fact that you are not honest, it is an opinion, my opinion. Why would you make such a mistake as to allude to a non-existent science of honesty, in a discussion about scientists destroying subjectivity?

This link was offered to me by an evolutionist on this board.
You don’t have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/you...cience_that_debunks_superstitious_charlatans/

 

[leibowde84]

It's not a fact that you are not honest, it is an opinion, my opinion. Why would you make such a mistake as to allude to a non-existent science of honesty, in a discussion about scientists destroying subjectivity?

This link was offered to me by an evolutionist on this board.
You don’t have a soul: The real science that debunks superstitious charlatans
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/you...cience_that_debunks_superstitious_charlatans/

Either he is being dishonest, or he is not. Your "opinion" can be whatever you like, but it can be wrong dependent on the facts.