Science: It sure does suck, doesn't it?

Great Debates
1

As I sit in my air-conditioned house, typing on my computer, with CNN on the TV in the background, I had an urge to get a beer. I went to my refrigerator, got a beer and, since I was hungry, I tossed a pizza in the microwave. While waiting three minutes! for the pizza to cook, I though: what has Science ever done for me?

Really. Think about it. Following the scientific method, we’ve developed nothing but nuclear bombs whereas parapsychology and metaphysics have enriched our lives in so in so many ways. I know for a fact, that without my weekly trip to my personal medium who, while channeling my Great-Aunt Dora while manifesting ectoplasm, my week would be far less exciting. The strange part is that Great-Aunt Dora is still alive… Isn’t modern parapsychology wonderful?

The scientific method has helped us create vaccines, improve the standards of living, given us new realms to learn about (Hubble, for instance), given us instantaneous global communication, and so on. Pfagh! All meaningless.

With PROVEN metaphysical techniques, we now know that men can bend spoons…with their minds alone!. What has Science done that can compete with that, I ask you.

Sure, the scientific method gives results time and time again. Research using the scientific method usually pays off, even if only by closing futile avenues of research. But where’s the heart?

All I can say is shame on all of you Science-types for picking on the Metaphysicians. Think of all they’ve done to make your life better.

Sometime during the next week, when you read your Zenner cards, bend a spoon mentally, channeling a long dead past self from Atlantis who was abducted by aliens or just relax with on an Out-of-Body astral vacation, take a moment and thank your lucky stars (astrology references…how much poorer our vocabulary would be without them!) for all the metaphysicians striving to enlighten us. Let’s let them know that, in the words of Lena Lamont “…all their hard work ain’t been in vain for nothin’!”

Ok, all sarcasm aside for a moment, my basic point is this: If parapsycholgy works, who cares? What good is it? If it’s so freaking subtle that it can’t be detected by the best instruments we have (we can detect individual atoms and see planets in other solar systems) why bother? Let’s say that all this metaphysical stuff works…so? Ok, you can project your astral self, I have web-cams all around the world. You can bend spoons with your brain? I can use my fingers, and have my brain free for other activities…like thinking. You’ve been abudcted by pervert aliens who travel light-years to rectally probe you? I can go to Hubble’s site and see the majesties of the cosmos. Your medium can summon a dead person to rap on a table? I can watch people now dead on video-tape or film. In other words, anything you claim to do, science can do better.

Just as important: Even if you don’t like it, the scientific method works. Over and over, time and again, the scientific method discards old theories and creates newer ones which fit more closely the observable, measurable facts. And, most importantly, gets results. With who-knows how many dollars flushed on parapsychology since the spiritualism craze of the late 1800s, name one tangible, provable, demonstrable, repeatable benefit society has recieved.

Science, via the scientific method is constantly growing, changing and evolving, parapsychology is stuck in

Bluntly, as far as I’m concerned, if you want to believe in metaphysics, parapsychology, spiritualism as a religon, more power to you, but if you want it taken seriously as a science, put up or shut up.
In the words of Robert A. Heinlein: If you can’t measure it, it’s not science, it’s opinion.
Fenris

2

If paranormal powers exist, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our scientific models of “reality”. Lord only knows what would happen if the existence of such powers were demonstrated unambiguously and scientific theories were modified and formulated to account for them. The ramifications would extend throughout science. It could have greater effect on our everyday lives than any other scientific revolution.

Scientists are people, and people like to know what’s real and be “right”. So there’s interest in the absence of any probably practical applications.

Some of the claimed powers have obvious practical uses near-term; for example, the CIA would love to have a few dependable remote viewers on staff. They looked for them, and they found some people who may possibly have scored better than chance; but they weren’t dependable enough for real-life intelligence work, not by a long shot.

Disclaimer: I don’t think any of it is real. But I would love to be proven wrong.

3

Fenris…I bet that name would be pretty cool for a Space Wolf homeworld also.

4

Fenris… bravo! My sentiments exactly.

JonF:

They do. There called spy satellites. :smiley:

5

I’m trying to be funny and I can’t even spell…

6

And ‘Metaphysical Fenris’ would be a great name for a band…

7

Ah, but a good remote viewer wouldn’t be constrained by those silly laws of optics and the obstinate refusal of light to pass through opaque objects.

8

good remote viewer… that’s kind of like jumbo shrimp, right?

9

Cute post:

You might be mistaking science and technology. The useful things you mention are mostly resultant of technological advances (which may or may not use the scientific method)

Science exists simply to find things out, whether there is a practical use for it or not. Thus, if there really were something to parapsychology (I doubt it but one never knows)science would actually be very interested in it.

10

I believe that Aurther C. Clark said “If there were pychic powers that there is no doubt in my my mind that criminals would have used their powers for their own gain.”

11

comstat vs holy vision:P

12

Fenris: You’ve hit upon a topic that a friend of mine (and fellow skeptic) likes to point out. For example, when “psychic detectives” give out info like, “I see a man with thick black hair. But I don’t know if it’s the murderer or the policeman who will find him.” Um, shouldn’t you know that? Isn’t that kind of important?

When I was on a TV show with some “psychics,” the host asked them who we were before introducing us. One woman (the now-late Dorothy Allison) pulled out a piece of paper and rattled off some meaningless things she claims to have “seen” when she was told she’d be on the show. But then she said it may or may not apply to us. Um, what good does that do? If you can’t answer a direct question, what good are you?

13

I have this sinking fear that I’ll end up sounding like a drugged up care bear, but I’m willing to risk that (how foolish I am.)
So anyway, as you’ve said, the scientific method works. Well, in so far as we’re human, which is the one main problem with it- frames of reference (huh?) See, as a human, or any other beign that doesn’t see all, we can’t observe the full effects of any but the most simple experiments- which is, or so I’ve been led to beleive, the basis of the scientific process (observe, question, form a hypothesis, and try to prove it.) So, if you can’t see everything, the system is screwed over from the beginning.
Through out history, most revolutionary scientists have obviously come up with revolutionary ideas. And why might that be? Because they didn’t observe! They switched to the guessing part of the brain, took a swing, and were right. Now a days, how does one formulate new physical laws? Certainly not by watching apples fall! No, he must guess about something first. Now, personally, I believe that guessing and parapsychology both come from (roughly) the same part of the brain- the imagination.
So, while the scientific process theoretically works (as does communism) it doesn’t fare nearly so well in light of human…weaknesses (as does communism.)
But back to the OP! What has science done for you? Well, for starters, you can now actually spend time on parapsychology instead of tending to your crops and fireplace 24/7, and that’s not to mention how you have to slave over that fire to get one lousy male for yourself, and, well, you can probably forget about sex after the age of 70 (assuming you lived that long!), and…you get the idea.

So, rate me:
1: My god! This boy speaks the lord’s own truth!
2: Wow! That was pretty insightful, it actually encouraged me to think and changed my ideas!
3: Hmm…that’ll stay in my mind for a few days…I guess…
4: Huh!?
5: You stupid, drugged up care bear! I mean, My god man!

14

As I am currently mired in study for Step 1 of the medical boards, I’d just like to pipe in to say that I wholeheartedly agree, science does suck. It sucks goats. Particularly Neuroanatomy. Neuroanatomy sucks big goats. Biochemistry takes a drag or two off the caprine member as well.

Nine more days.

Dr. J

15

Dr. J —

Neuroanatomy sucks so big I cannot describe it. I say that as the son of a neuroanatomist.

However, as someone who took my boards not that terribly long ago, allow me to tell you that you shouldn’t knock yourself out on it. I could get the exact statistics (my father reviews the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology results, questions, etc. every year to better teach his students), but the simple fact is: if you never took neuroanatomy (but took everything else), it would probably only drop your scores 2-3%

As far as the USMLE is concerned, it’s a small fraction of anatomy, which is a fraction of the overall test. A basic understanding of the broad strokes of neuroanatomy is fine. A lot of what they consider ‘neuroanatomy’ questions are really:

  • nerve pathways you learned in gross anatomy (and not even the tricky ones - more the clinically significant ones)

  • clinically useful signs, syndromes, etc. (the questions may not directly ask, but knowing them may be useful) like Brown-Sequard, syringomyelia, etc.

  • neurovascular questions (berry aneurysms, AVMs, strokes)

  • neurophysiology, specifically a lot of emphasis on the basics. I have a theory that (if you consider the politics of medical styles over the centuries) modern allopathic and osteopathic medicine wants to make sure doc don’t turn to misty eyed loons after they graduate, and come up with all sorts of ‘crackpot’ theories (as docs have done in every century, including the one now ending) they want to make sure you understand membrane depolarization, synaptic functions, and neurotransmitters dead cold in your sleep
    Look, in two days of testing, I doubt you’ll see three questions about any of those dozens of 3- and 4- letter nuclei whose names I can’t recall at the moment. There’s simply too much material to cover.

Then again I loved the boards. Really. I’d take them again if I could. Reviewing was a blast [We’ll ignore the fact that about a week out, I suddenly realized it was too late to do much more than patch holes, and nearly went catatonic]

Science sucks… science sucks (does a little Rumplestilskin dance) Come suck me, Science. Suck me dry…

16

That’s a hell of a thing. It’s better than that, though–since they went computer-based, the Step I is only one seven-hour day. They realized that 700 questions really isn’t more predictive than 350.

I agree. The last three weeks have been great–the pressure is relatively off, since just about everyone passes this thing, and I don’t feel compelled to force in every last detail as was necessary for the Path and Pharm finals. Nothing to do but sit around and read about medicine. Unfortunately, I’m entering that catatonic state. I’ll probably start a support thread in MPSIMS soon.

Thanks for the advice.
Dr. J
(What was this thread about again?)

17

Argeable said:

I would definitely agree that parapsychology is purely imagination… :wink: