How are scintific theories produced?

mark black · Post by **mark black** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:17 am

effie,

My imaginary mentor says that bullshit has a pattern - and that pattern is: 'ah, no, but'.

Ah, no, but...it's in greek. Ah, no, but... it's not published nationally. Ah, no but... I don't want to reveal his name. Ah, no, but...

Every ah, no but...adds a little to the story we didn't know before.

ah, no, but... I wrote that in another forum.

There's always something else. Add this to your blatant plaigerism earlier in this thread and there's a pattern of behaviour that reflects upon your character. You're dishonest.

There's a hundred other little things that tell me I'm correct in this assessment - not least that all this undetectable neotic organ hoopla is the worst case of psuedo-scientific diarrhea I've ever come across. Clearly, you are a massive nut-job. That's a psychiatric term for fantasy-land whackadoodle from the DSM - (ISBN 13: 9780890420263.)

mb.

Psychonaut · Post by **Psychonaut** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:43 am

Mark, not all books have an ISBN number, and not all books go through major publishing houses, or even minor ones.

There is no reason to disbelieve that effie has a mentor who is a doctor who has written a book.

Surely there are enough doctors who have written books who have younger friends and family that they are helping with their education that this is not wholly implausible?

There is also no reason in particular to believe effie on this matter, but then it shouldn't have any bearing on the notions which she expresses.

You are engaging in a particularly long-winded and petulent argument ad hominem, which all seems to stem from your desire to disregard what someone else is saying 'because of their immorality'.

Would you disbelieve Stalin if he told you that 1+1=2?

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:00 am

Psychonaut wrote:Surely there are enough doctors who have written books who have younger friends and family that they are helping with their education that this is not wholly implausible?

Especially as she is Greek as this behaviour is not uncommon in Greece, or, many other Europeon countries.

mark black · Post by **mark black** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:22 am

No, but I'd call him a fucking liar if he said 1+1=3.

bus2bondi · Post by **bus2bondi** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:16 am

1+1 can equal 3, if you look at it in the sense that there is a circle and square present in a star.

effie · Post by **effie** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:42 am

Arising_uk,

You are saying that scientists have been researching neural nets, but haven't succeeded in fully determining their role. Of course, no one doubts that neural nets (and brain as a whole, as a specialized entity) participate in the "memorization" process.

However, there are no inconsistencies between this fact and my mentor's suggestion. The CNS prticipates in all itellectual faculties, but it is not mind (and there is no research that has proved that brain- neural nets etc. perform any intellectual faculty)

Before we proceed any further, we must clarify:

1. Brain has been characterized as the most specialized human organ. As a specialized organ, its work is by definition absolutely specific: every time it receives the same stimulus responds in the exactly same way. None of the specialized organs has the ability to choose if it is going to respond or not. However, the noetic organ- mind can!

2. Cells (and monocellular organisms), although they do not have neither brain nor neural nets, have intellect and perform all the intellectual faculties.

3. Brain is functionally "disconnected" with mind, if we take into account that in the majority of cases, mental disorders are not accompanied by organic damage.

4. The fact that information reach brain as electric signals does not prove that they are stored in it or utilized by it.

5. You have written that, although scientists have been researching neural nets, they haven't reached full understanding of mind. In your opinion, which is the cause of this inability?

6. Every time that our scientific opinions are compatible with reality (that is to say correct), the phenomena we study become simplified and cmprehensible and are correctly interpreted. Even the simplest phenomenon (e.g. the gradual sinking of a sailboat in the horizon) is incomprehensible if our basic truth is wrong (if we thought that earth was flat). Is it unlikely that the fact that we cannot understand the intellectual faculties is due to our basic beliefs regarding the role of the brain is wrong?

7. Is brain ,as a whole, the only candidate for the role of the noetic organ- mind? Given the existing regime, under which intellectual faculties haven't been interpreted yet, should we or shouldn't we propose other candidates, apart from brain, for the role of mind? Is it scientifically correct and desirable or is it the definition of scientific error/obsession to decline any other candidacy?

In this context, every scientist is obliged to test all the possible versions before opining. How much of a scientist is someone who has already decided about the outcome of his research?

The expression and testing of all the alternative versions of an issue is the only acceptable scientific way.

Let me remind you that all the knowledge we have today were, when expressed for the very first time, opinions which were considered heretic, wrong, etc and which conflicted with the prevailing opinions. What would you say today to those who prosecuted Copernicus, Galileo, Servet, Paracelsus, etc? On the other hand, what would you say to Copernicus and the others: do not express your opinions, because you may be disappointed if they are not accepted by others?

Finally, in your opinion, which crieria should we use in order to choose among the various "factors" that have been or will be suggested?

Ps. The model I am trying to present has not come out of nowhere. There are plenty of knowledge and scientific laboratory data to support it(from physics, neurophysiology, biology,etc), which haven't been utilized yet due to the hard- set belief that brain is mind. I once again offer to send the links! After all, my mentor hs dedicated his life at gathering data and utilizing it.

effie · Post by **effie** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:59 am

Psychonaut,

the case for me is closed, there is no point in fighting with Mark.
After all, it doesn't matter what I say or claim: I have offered to send him the book, but he has turned down my offer several times. The presence of the book would be the most definite proof of my honesty.

I totally agree that the identity of the sayer does not determine the "quality" of the claims. Until now, not once has he addressed me an argument against my posts. What does it matter who my mentor is, etc? Anyway...

On one hand he accuses me of plagiarism (which means that he has seen other people expressing those ideas) and on the other hand claims that he cannot find anything in google about my words. Go figure!

Merry Christmas

effie · Post by **effie** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:44 am

What has happened b2b?

I am right here if you want to talk- I'd be glad to be of any assistance to you.
You make me worry

mark black · Post by **mark black** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:14 am

b2b,

fucking liar!

mb.

bus2bondi · Post by **bus2bondi** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:16 am

your the only psychologist i've ever liked
because your more of a friend than a psychologist

bus2bondi · Post by **bus2bondi** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:20 am

oh hi pseudo, i thought that auk wrote that post, nevermind.

effie · Post by **effie** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:22 am

I take this as a compliment

I wish I could do sth to cheer you up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPkYCYgHjMU

Ps I know a lot of jokes, but only in greek.

Talk
burst
Do something

bus2bondi · Post by **bus2bondi** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:43 am

i can smell you from miles away
but thank god that smell goes away

(that was to mb. not effie) so whoever you are, fuck your pissy star, it burned out of gas, and your stuck with your ass

bus2bondi · Post by **bus2bondi** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:56 am

mark black · Post by **mark black** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:58 am

effie,

You asked for this. I'd have left you alone, as much as I hate snake oil salesmen, but 6 pages of snake oil after the event, you wrote:

Beware, for Mark has accused me of plagiarism, I may steal your ideas

I let it go, but you didn't, and now I won't. So, tell me - is this the same mysterious book from which you drew the passgae on page three:

In our book, we have analyzed i) the role that basic truths plays a) in mind, since it is a mental "tool" (or filter) as well as b) in science, where it is the factor which guides all scientific activities and determines the frameworks ithn which science will "move",its goals and its borderlines,
ii) the methods with which it is located, tested and improved, etc.
In general, as far as basic truth is concerned, what we propose is the replacement of uncritical general acceptance by conscious, individual selection. In order for this to happen, each of the individuals that becomes a scientist must be able to locate the basic truth of their science and have the knowledge that is essential in order to test it objectively and improve it.

Or is this only one of your imaginary mentors' publications?

mb.