Ben Stein is an idiot

[Adun]

Seriously, he is.

This whole "Expelled" thing, it's just mind-boggling to think there are people that ignorant.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678

These 2 videos sum it all up.

[AmbientSound]

SCOREBOARD


Science                 Creationism


    1                             0

[Adun]

Haha. Stein actually said:

Science leads to killing people.

The irony of that statement is killing me. What a moron.

[no_leaf_clover]

Stein's message is that there is intelligence behind the universe.

Who thinks that everything just happened to occur out of nothingness by some kind of miraculous set of dumb chances, is truly an idiot.

If you are conscious and you exist within the universe, does not the universe contain intelligence by definition?  It amazes me how blind people are even to their own existence and what it suggests.  What is the base scientific unit of consciousness and the ability to perceive?  Put it in a textbook (which always change over time -- HMM) and become aggressive and arrogant about it and you only bind yourself further to animal nature.

[Adun]

Stein's message is that there is intelligence behind the universe.

... and that it should be taught in school and have academic merit regardless of there not being any proof for it or any practical applications or predictions originating from the "theory".

His message is also that science is evil, leads to killing, etc. (LOL)

His message is also that the theory of evolution ("darwinism" as he incorrectly call it) is wrong. (ignorant)

His message is also that the theory of evolution can't explain the origin of life, gravity or the origin the universe. (ignorant^99)

Basically, his message is "I'm an idiot".

[no_leaf_clover]

... and that it should be taught in school and have academic merit

"Academic merit" is meaningless.  The entire public education system is already a joke.  I abandoned that ship a long time ago.

(If you haven't caught on yet, I'm not Ben Stein.)

regardless of there not being any proof for it

No proof that there is intelligence to the universe?  I disagree.  And if Mr. Stein is claiming anything else, I honestly don't care.  What are your thoughts on the nature of existence, Adun?

or any practical applications

There is no readily apparent "practical" application of the arts or philosophy (or even astral projection, cough cough), either, and yet, at the same time, everything that needs to be "practical" is nothing but a tool.  There is no real value or significance to tools, but for what we actually apply them to.

Why do people wear clothes that are different colors and designs?  Why aren't we all issued standard living uniforms?  Are you going to think that this is a meaningless question and reject the view I offer out of hand?  (Probably.)

[Adun]

"Academic merit" is meaningless.

Err... why?

The entire public education system is already a joke.  I abandoned that ship a long time ago.

In the USA it seems to be indeed a joke in a lot of schools, with the creationism "controversy" and all. However I certainly hope you were not including universities in that statement.

(If you haven't caught on yet, I'm not Ben Stein.)

Nobody said you were, I merely filled in what was missing in your assertion about his message.

No proof that there is intelligence to the universe?  I disagree.  And if Mr. Stein is claiming anything else, I honestly don't care.  What are your thoughts on the nature of existence, Adun?

No, there is none. You can say the "complexity" of the universe indicates an intelligent designer, I can make up 10 other explanations equally valid.

What do you mean by "existence"? Mine? The universe's? I think consciousness is infinite, and not in the after-life sense with heaven/reincarnation/astral planes/etc.

There is no readily apparent "practical" application of the arts or philosophy (or even astral projection, cough cough)(...)

That's why philosophy is taught in... philosophy class, not in science class.

As for astral projection, I have no doubt the so called "oobes" are the same as dreams/lucid dreams. I sit on the fence as to whether dreams have an actual existence outside the mind, but all that astral planes/bodies/chakras thing is silly.

Why do people wear clothes that are different colors and designs?  Why aren't we all issued standard living uniforms?  Are you going to think that this is a meaningless question and reject the view I offer out of hand?  (Probably.)

Because humans develop different personalities? What the hell as that to do with the topic?

[Stookie]

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/pU42Mfcn/Family_Guy_Evolution_Explained

[CFTraveler]

I think the basic message was barely touched.
The point is, that BS. is basically saying, that religious thought should be taught in science class, and that the scientific establishment is evilly steering us away from this.
Obviously, there are a lot of preconceptions there.  As anyone knows, I am a spiritual/religious person and as such have beliefs that have no scientific backing.
The problem is that when you start teaching religion in school as science, you go back to the time of the middle ages where a religious establishment decided what you were allowed to study and what not, based on scriptures that were not written for that.  In other words, the power structure would shift from scientific to religious.
So if you think that the scientific establishment is flawed (and of course it is, any power structure will always be flawed) it is in the trend towards the resistance to accept anything that isn't measurable and repeatable, with a little sprinkling of ego.  "I discovered this, therefore  it is correct.  If you discover something different, I must prove you wrong" instead of "if it looks like a fish, and moves like a fish, and smells like a fish....etc."  This is sometimes frustrating and unjust.
But I think I prefer this to: "It says in scripture that there can never be anything better than what God has created so whoever wears bifocals is a heretic and must be killed".  This is the kind of thing that happens when a religious establishment, who is not burdened with having to prove anything that isn't written in their scripture, has too much power.
So really, it's not about whether Ben Stein is an idiot.  It's about the merit (or lack thereof) of his position, and how it stands next to known history.

ps. Stookie that was hilarious.

[Adun]

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/pU42Mfcn/Family_Guy_Evolution_Explained

That sounds about right. 



The problem with Ben Stein is that not only he fails to understand what science is, but he also(even though he supposedly did about 2 years of research for this "documentary") calls evolution "darwinism" and says ignorant things like "it can't explain gravity" or "we have never observed a single species evolve".

He argues about something about which he knows nothing and his arguments are pretty much just appeals to emotion. It's very ironic he calls evil the science that's responsible for him being alive.

[AmbientSound]

LOL! Family Guy is awesome...

[no_leaf_clover]

No, there is none. You can say the "complexity" of the universe indicates an intelligent designer, I can make up 10 other explanations equally valid.

That is not my argument.  My argument is that you don't get something out of nothing.  You have been misled into feeling that, because you know the word "electron" and what it represents in the theoretical model it comes from,  you therefore know the true nature of the electron and how and why it exists, when really all you know is the mechanical observations man has so far observed of it (and I don't know if you've been keeping up but they've only recently "filmed" an actual oscillation of a light wave, and they still don't really know what they're looking at!).  Since this is an astral projection website I don't think it would be too out of line to reference the concept of "tao," that is, the objective reality of the world, of which you can only ever have a subjective and incomplete view.  What is perpetually before you is a mystery, no matter what names you slap on the objects or concepts you see or think.  Just because you can describe and even predict the way something moves or otherwise behaves in nature does not mean you truly comprehend its nature.

That's why philosophy is taught in... philosophy class, not in science class.

Science is a dumb tool, and you talk as though it's better than philosophy, as though it were a more worthwhile occupation of the mind. That is the whole problem!  Philosophy encompasses science because science itself ultimately comes down to assertions that people will have to simply agree (or disagree, as is often the case even in peer reviewed journals) upon.  Science is a philosophy, and a damned boring one at that.  How can science prove itself?  Scientifically?  Maybe you get my point.  Stuffy technical arrogance and snobbery is not the enlightened view of the creation around you.  Technical knowledge and mystical experiences can go hand in hand but the attitude you perpetuate absolutely kills what would inspire a richer and deeper understanding of the entire world around us.

Because humans develop different personalities? What the hell as that to do with the topic?

That's not a scientific enough answer for me!  I want you to scientifically explain to me why green looks green to me and not like red.  Not the wavelengths of the light being different, I know that, I'm an engineering major.  I know all the "right answers" to all of life's meaningless questions.  I'm just saying why isn't black white and all the other colors similarly reversed?  What difference would it make to a tree?  Or a rock?  Why do things even try to grow?  I want that explained scientifically, too!

[no_leaf_clover]

So really, it's not about whether Ben Stein is an idiot.  It's about the merit (or lack thereof) of his position, and how it stands next to known history.

You see the problem with building the "right brain" too much over the "left brain," but why must the alternative to modern science's righteousness be old-fashioned religion?  There are philosophical texts like the Tao te Ching that are universal and require no faith, and leave each to his own while still offering more enriching views of the world.

[interception]

 I'm just saying why isn't black white and all the other colors similarly reversed?  What difference would it make to a tree?  Or a rock?  Why do things even try to grow?  I want that explained scientifically, too!

Good luck getting a conventional scientific theory for those. As flawed as science is I do respect science in general, it gave us those lovely Hubble pictures after all. Science and the western scientific community in general has a lot of growing up to do however before it will provide answers to the deeper questions.

One of the big problems (as with most things) is closed mindedness and money. Theres nothing worse than a respected but closed minded scientist who's funding is about to dry up... there is something almost religious about such a person. 

[Adun]

That is not my argument.  My argument is that you don't get something out of nothing.  You have been misled into feeling that(...)

You assume too much, I don't believe in that.

Science is a dumb tool

lolwut

and you talk as though it's better than philosophy, as though it were a more worthwhile occupation of the mind.

No, I don't. I said they're different things, and they are.

You can't claim which one is more worthwhile, that's relative to the person and to what specific science and philosophy you're referring to.

That is the whole problem!  Philosophy encompasses science because science itself ultimately comes down to assertions that people will have to simply agree (or disagree, as is often the case even in peer reviewed journals) upon.  Science is a philosophy, and a damned boring one at that.

Err... no. Science is a system of obtaining knowledge, philosophy is hard to define but it can deal with more subjective and personal things which are out of the scope of science.

How can science prove itself?  Scientifically?

If you're talking about the scientific method, logic?

Stuffy technical arrogance and snobbery is not the enlightened view of the creation around you.

What creation?

Technical knowledge and mystical experiences can go hand in hand but the attitude you perpetuate absolutely kills what would inspire a richer and deeper understanding of the entire world around us.

Yes, a shame no one takes Ben Stein seriously, had his intelligent and bold ideas been accepted, advancement for mankind would surely come. 

That's not a scientific enough answer for me!  I want you to scientifically explain to me why green looks green to me and not like red.  Not the wavelengths of the light being different, I know that, I'm an engineering major.  I know all the "right answers" to all of life's meaningless questions.  I'm just saying why isn't black white and all the other colors similarly reversed?  What difference would it make to a tree?  Or a rock?  Why do things even try to grow?  I want that explained scientifically, too!

Wasn't the question originally about clothing? Anyway, what you're talking about now is the whole different subject of consciousness, which is still a mystery. What's your point?

[no_leaf_clover]

Good luck getting a conventional scientific theory for those.

I don't particularly want one. Just like you wouldn't use a hammer to open an egg.  I just don't think the metaphorical hammer is the end-all to all of life's "problems," yet it seems to be cynically elevated to such a position.

I "respect" science, I read scientific magazines and the like, I find it interesting.  But the scientist will never replace a wiser man for me.  I've been around tons of scientists and engineers and the lot usually is a close-minded and extremely right-brained bunch.  In other words, not your Newtons, Einsteins, Teslas, etc., all very religious in their own ways.



Adun, I have already posted everything I wanted to say to you.  I could sit here and type lengthy responses to all your questions but I think it would be a waste of time for both of us.  You can Google words I posted and take things further if you ever so desire.

I'll offer this excerpt from the Wikipedia page on "science," though:

Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.

That is basically the same thing as I was just saying to you.  Knowing the way an electron moves, for example, is meaningless as far as being able to truly understand what that electron is.  Do you feel as though you can be summed up as a person just by showing all the places you move around to in your life, and the things you say, etc.?  If so then I feel even more sorry for you.

Economist E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.[22] Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.[22]

The implications of the ideological denial of ethics for the practice of science itself in terms of fraud, plagiarism, and data falsification, has been criticized by several academics. In "Science and Ethics", the philosopher Bernard Rollin examines the ideology that denies the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Philosophical_focus (emphasis mine)

[Adun]

Somehow you keep trying to shift the topic to consciousness and qualia and implying I am using science to "suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence". The topic was the intellectually lazy patch that is creationism/ID.

It would seem that in your perspective one can only follow either hardcore materialism or silly mystical crap.

[no_leaf_clover]

Somehow you keep trying to shift the topic to consciousness

How could I not?

and qualia and implying I am using science to "suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence". The topic was the intellectually lazy patch that is creationism/ID.

And I have eaten that topic!

It would seem that in your perspective one can only follow either hardcore materialism or silly mystical crap.

If it seems so to you then you are wrong.

I already told you I am an engineering major. Do you want me to draw you some free body diagrams?  Will they tickle your fancy?

[Adun]

Sorry, I fail to see how denying a magic man designing reality as we know it implies a materialistic explanation for consciousness. 

[no_leaf_clover]

Well I can tell you all the most interesting things in electricity and electronics occur when you create open feedback loops, kind of like when you put the output into the input and vice versa.  Your head is an open feedback.  Consciousness is an open feedback.  And it never stops, always seeking upward, like plant growth, and it destroys what limits it, transcends it, and it will ultimately envelope all.

It is why thermodynamics and entropy state that everything should be breaking down into nothingness (energy as we know it is always lost in transfer! between friction, heat, chemical reactions, etc. etc.),  but instead the universe keeps building up and organizing into sentient beings and swirling galaxies!

You are a PART of god, and it is OBVIOUS.  I can't help but to keep referring to consciousness, because of what value or meaning is anything if nothing is there to be conscious of it, or to perceive it?

[Adun]

If you want to say "god" is the universe then that's a whole different story, pantheism makes much more sense than personal gods.

[no_leaf_clover]

Yes and if we really want to dive down the rabbit hole then the real "god" has no form or name, or infinitely many forms and names, always changing, burning like fire, and you could say it doesn't even really exist.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

[CFTraveler]

free body diagrams?

What's a free body diagram?

[interception]

Well I can tell you all the most interesting things in electricity and electronics occur when you create open feedback loops, kind of like when you put the output into the input and vice versa.  Your head is an open feedback.  Consciousness is an open feedback.  And it never stops, always seeking upward, like plant growth, and it destroys what limits it, transcends it, and it will ultimately envelope all.

It is why thermodynamics and entropy state that everything should be breaking down into nothingness (energy as we know it is always lost in transfer! between friction, heat, chemical reactions, etc. etc.),  but instead the universe keeps building up and organizing into sentient beings and swirling galaxies!

You are a PART of god, and it is OBVIOUS.  I can't help but to keep referring to consciousness, because of what value or meaning is anything if nothing is there to be conscious of it, or to perceive it?

I agree, except for one thing: consciousness has allready enveloped all. Or rather, everything was/is consciousness.

[no_leaf_clover]

What's a free body diagram?

It's like a sketch scientists and engineers use to analyze isolated physical systems.  Like if you have two columns and you set a beam across them,  and then sit something else on the far end of the beam,  one would commonly draw a free-body diagram of these things and use it to apply the right formulas to see what forces are acting where, moments of inertia, etc., to make sure the structure is sturdy, for example.  You can draw them for all sorts of things to do calculations in old Newtonian mechanics.

This link gives a definition and has an illustration: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/freeb.html

Here's one drawn for a pulley with two weights attached:



And here's the site it came from (an example problem) : http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/Courses/enph131/fbdex1.html

You could use that drawing to help calculate what would happen when the 2 kg mass is released from rest and accelerated downward by gravity, assuming that surface and pulley are frictionless and not more "sticky" (in which case they'd have a coefficient of friction to add into the calculations).