About God And The World

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: ketsuko

Peer review don't allow that.

What happens when the confirmation bias infects the scientific body?

Look at what happened to Galileo. Or what about the guy who first successfully used epidemiology in London to track cholera outbreaks, but the peer review of the time overruled his science in favor of "bad air" which was confirmation bias at work. The other doctors and experts simply refused to see his data for what it was and continued to chalk it all up the bad air which was the prevailing theory of disease at the time.

Confirmation bias.

They believed over what the data showed.

a reply to: ketsuko

How is this contradicting my first post exactly?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I'm really more interested in how you see the world than what the Bible says. And in general I really believe whatever the word God describes is not what God is. Just like ghost, spirit and all of that. What does that mean different dimension?

a reply to: Peeple

For me and my world view ,it also includes my view of the unseen realm . I think along the lines of cause and effects that also helps me explain me to me .Maybe I thought too much on the Romans do ,do ,do chapter but I try to make seance of the world when it makes no seance without that hidden part .

a reply to: Peeple

What I would really appreciate is what are your beliefs?

" You and I are both illusions , what then do we need to make study of it ? " -
Lao Tzu

" Heaven and earth act
but don't care, treat everything
like flowers by the grave. The wise
act without caring, treat everyone
like flowers by the grave." - Tao Te Ching

a reply to: Peeple

Just a short quick vid by Dr. Heiser looking at the subject of God/gods in the bible

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: ketsuko

How is this contradicting my first post exactly?

You said peer review doesn't allow confirmation bias, but these were cases of it.

The data backed the guy in London, but the conventional wisdom of the day was that "bad air" caused disease. So even though the doctor in question had very carefully documented that ever single case could be traced to certain wells (contaminated water - cholera is a water born pathogen), they dismissed his data and findings out of hand for their conventional wisdom. The peer review failed to accept that there might be any relevance to his theory even though the evidence supported his hypothesis.

In other words, the believed it was bad air and refused to entertain the notion it might be caused by something else even when presented with compelling evidence that might indicate otherwise. Their beliefs were too strong.