Gods of Academia

Originally posted by randyvs

Logarock
I know I must conceade to you as for the rock carving. I realise art is never evidence of anything really.
Art is just art. End of story. Get a lot of things screwed up claiming art is evidence.

edit on 15-10-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Most of the art we speak of here is communicative in nature. That changes everything. Not the end of the story but the beginning.

You take that part of the world in the time frame. Communicative art didnt develop in isolation. There were some style types relative to area but the same motifs were used by all of the kingdoms of the day. All you need to do is study royal sumearian cylinder seal communicative "art' and then study early egyptian, hittite, syrian ect and you will see the same motifs used in the same fashion.....by the truck load. Even Rome, and the maya, aztecs, in india and southeast asia all used the basic motiffs of communication found in the sumeraian cylinders. And in most cases perfectly identical save for stylization.

Originally posted by randyvs
What if Steven Hawking and Michiu Kaku and even Dawkins and Hitchens only know what someone else wants them to know?

well I guess it says that if one gains enough knowledge and fame they to can become a God by their own right and self definition. Of course gaining this Absolute Authority via Academia ?

yup sounds logical to me, what religious following were these people you mention here in the above quote ?

I will have to look into that myself...

reply to post by Logarock

You take that part of the world in the time frame. Communicative art didnt develop in isolation. There were some style types relative to area but the same motifs were used by all of the kingdoms of the day. All you need to do is study royal sumearian cylinder seal communicative "art' and then study early egyptian, hittite, syrian ect and you will see the same motifs used in the same fashion.....by the truck load. Even Rome, and the maya, aztecs, in india and southeast asia all used the basic motiffs of communication found in the sumeraian cylinders. And in most cases perfectly identical save for stylization.

Study wha ! That's it huh? Umm... Ya ! Get right on that. Should be able to cover all that in what, a week?
So you would disagree and say art can be used as evidence then. Besides feeling like a ping pong ball.
You seem to have me at huge disadvantage my friend.. However I understand the view you've shared and concede your point straight away. Thank you for the correction. Does make perfect sense the way you spell it out. Never let it be said, that my number one reason for any thread isn't to hopefully learn something

Cosmic

I understand the absurdity of the question. I guess it might have been a rhetorcal example. Am I getting paranoid or am I being mocked here

reply to post by randyvs


That´s true mate. I can agree with you with the Suppression and Censorship in science field, these days. Here is some more info you might wanna look at.

Suppression, Censorship and Dogmatism in Science

Historically, there were few scientific breakthroughs that were not violently opposed, condemned and strongly resisted. Every scientist knows this, Thomas Kuhn has written a book about it that is considered a classic, and yet the pattern keeps repeating itself. Many mainstream scientists these days believe that science has essentially reached 'the end of the road', that everything that can be understood has been understood, and that therefore claims to genuinely revolutionary discoveries must necessarily be erroneous or fraudulent.

Establishment science has thus gotten into the habit of ignoring, burying or suppressing what has now become astonishing amounts of anomalous evidence. Some of this evidence challenges the very foundations of the accepted scientific worldview, and none of it is taught in universities or covered by textbooks. Mention any of it to a mainstream scientist, and odds are you will be dismissed as a crank, or worse, a crackpot. The conclusion is sobering: some of what passes for "scientific fact" these days is little more than a social construct. What is true and what is not is determined by the scientific prestige of the claimant, the predilections of journal editors and referees, and by economic interests. A scientist who challenges the status quo becomes a persona non grata - banned from publication in journals and speaking on conferences, defunded, marginalized. The victims of this phenomenon include world-class scientists such as Jacques Benveniste, Peter Duesberg, Halton Arp, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman.

Taken from Suppressed science-news

In a commentary on his website, biologist Rupert Sheldrake recounts his experience in - almost - appearing in The Enemies of Reason, a British documentary written by well-known biologist and public advocate for atheism Richard Dawkins. He describes how he was recruited to appear in the documentary with promises that there would be an opportunity for scientific discussion.

But when he tried to engage in such a discussion, both Dawkins and they director made it clear that they were not interested in discussing evidence. The TV programme was intended to debunk, not give a fair view of the scientific evidence: "Richard seemed uneasy and said, 'I’m don’t want to discuss evidence'. 'Why not?' I asked. 'There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.' The camera stopped. The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic." Dawkins has of course every right to promote his religious views- in this case, the religious views of atheistic materialism, which considers evidence for presumably transcendental phenomena a mortal threat to its belief system.

However, when Dawkins and people like him promote their views in the name of science, they commit labeling fraud. Dawkins may be a scientist by trade, but when he acts and argues as a fundamentalist believer in materialism, ignoring evidence that challenges his belief system, then he commands no more credibility and scientific authority than any other kind of religious believer.

The British Channel 4, which first aired Dawkin's programme, offers the following introduction on its site: There are two ways of looking at the world – through faith and superstition or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence – in other words, through reason. Reason and a respect for evidence are precious commodities, the source of human progress and our safeguard against fundamentalists and those who profit from obscuring the truth. Unfortunately, Dawkin's behavior with respect to observations and evidence submitted to him by Sheldrake demonstrates little evidence for "reason or respect for evidence"- it rather suggests that Dawkins is a materialist fundamentalist who "profits from obscuring the truth".

Peace

reply to post by Seed76

That´s true mate. I can agree with you with the Suppression and Censorship in science field, these days. Here is some more info you might wanna look at.

Right on I will check those links pronto.
Thank you for that excellent contribution Seed. I must say this thread seems to have panned out rather well.
Considering how my knees we're knock'in when I released it.

reply to post by Seed76


I'm sorry, but I've got to address the source on this one. I've poured over this site before, and it is nothing more than anti-science nonsense. It puts for the idea of structures on Mars being suppressed along with a whole host of other claims that are outright false.

In referencing Rupert Sheldrake, you appeal to the worst of the worst in terms of claims that are not supported by evidence.

Science doesn't suppress anything, it simply ignores claims without evidence.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I agree just looked it over myself and didn't come away with anything really.

reply to post by randyvs


You´re welcome mate. Yeah, i can totally understand that. Nothing to worry though, i was planning to do a similar thread at some point, that shows how the "Science" works, in means of suppression and censorship, when money are involved.

Peace

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

In referencing Rupert Sheldrake, you appeal to the worst of the worst in terms of claims that are not supported by evidence.

Thanks for your contribution madness, i will keep that in mind with Ph.D. Rupert Sheldrake.

Peace

reply to post by Seed76


Um...what are you trying to imply? Just because he has a PhD doesn't mean anything. His work was rejected because of no reason beyond the entire lack of evidence to support them.

Academia isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship. There is a tyranny in which evidence holds sway.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Um...what are you trying to imply?

I am simply implying, that i will keep the Ph.D. Rupert Sheldrake, from further references etc. Nothing special. That´s why i said thanks for your contribution.

Academia isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship. There is a tyranny in which evidence holds sway.

That´s true, Academia it´s a dictatorship, especially when financial funds are in involvement.

Peace

reply to post by Seed76


Nope, the only thing that determines funding is evidence. If your position is based in evidence then there is a hell of a lot of a chance that you'll get a lot of funding. Well, depending on your field of study. Studies of mud dwelling lizards aren't going to get the same sort of funding that medical research gets.

Withholding funds from an evidence-based scientific theory is harmful to academic institutions, who tend to work towards their own best interests.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Nope, the only thing that determines funding is evidence. If your position is based in evidence then there is a hell of a lot of a chance that you'll get a lot of funding.

It depends actually, if the evidence meets the criteria for further funding. That´s why sometimes, some evidence tends to be disregarded, if doesn´t meets the criteria for further funding.

Withholding funds from an evidence-based scientific theory is harmful to academic institutions, who tend to work towards their own best interests.

Their best own interest of academic institutions is money. That´s why they tend to present the evidence that meets the criteria for further funding. And yes, those criteria are different, for each kind of science-field.

Peace

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Academia isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship. There is a tyranny in which evidence holds sway.

The gist of this thread is? Is? Is? Is that tyranny also suppressing evidence? I think it is clear, that can't be denied.
What forms and what values of these evidences is anyones guess.

reply to post by randyvs

Originally posted by randyvs
The gist of this thread is? Is? Is?

A bunch of fallacious statements regarding the scientific community that cannot be backed up.

Is that tyranny also suppressing evidence? I think it is clear, that can't be denied.

No, it is unclear and unsubstantiated. It can be denied. The tyranny is of evidence, evidence itself is the dictator.

What forms and what values of these evidences is anyones guess.

edit on 27-12-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

This statement is grammatically incorrect and I've tried reading and rereading it to get what you mean, but I seriously don't get what you're trying to say. Please, explain it to me.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Apologies, that was totally butchered now that I read it back to myself. All I was referring to was the value of any
evidence that may /may not be suppressed. How the value of any suppressed evidence would be unknown.
Did I do better. I hope I hope.

Thank you for your patience by the way.

There is no way, that what I'm saying here, throughs the whole scientific community under the bus. I kinow you don't think I'm that stupid. We are, I believe, at that point though where we simply have to agree to disagree me thinkst.

Originally posted by Logarock
"Priests would recite hymns such as this one, for Pa-nefer:

"Awake!..May you be alert as a living one, rejuvenated every day, healthy in millions of occasions of god sleep, while the gods protect you, protection being around you every day."

The Opening of the Mouth Ritual

Several points here but God uses a pagan concept to communicate the revival of Israel.

Uhm... these were prayers recited over a dead person and have nothing to do with the revival of Israel (as any scientist who studies Egypt can tell you.) Israel is never shown as being in the arms of Anubis (god of cemeteries, guardian of the dead) while having its eyes opened and mouth opened by a fairly recent version of a god created by a composite of two important gods of the area.

There are wall paintings of this -- you can see the illustration (ancient Egypt) and the text here: en.wikipedia.org...

Okay, Seed, I took a look at the section you quoted on "repressed scientists." It listed a few, so let's see how they fared:

Originally posted by Seed76
The victims of this phenomenon include world-class scientists such as Jacques Benveniste, Peter Duesberg, Halton Arp, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman.

Fleischman had a long career. He became embroiled in a brawl over his "cold fusion" -- but rather than being repressed, people everywhere tried to replicate it. Other scientists worked on this problem, using his paper and communicating with him (nobody got banned... in fact, it was seen as a good solution if possible) for a good five or six years: en.wikipedia.org... before folks gave up on it. He hasn't been able to demonstrate his principle. He continues to work, and has published other papers (including more cold fusion) and was recently working with the U.S. Navy
en.wikipedia.org...

Pons continues as his collaborator and worked on cold fusion through the 1990's. Pons' work with cold fusion was sponsored by Toyota... finally losing its funding after 10 years of no results.
en.wikipedia.org...

Can you explain to me (I'm confused here) about the repression? As far as I can tell, they were allowed to write any paper they liked, publish books, and even had corporations funding their controversial research.

Halton Arp has won numerous awards, has had some of his theories confirmed, and still continues to publish and research. He's a peer reviewer for one journal and is on its editorial board:
en.wikipedia.org...

Peter Duesberg -- You might make a case for this one on either way. Either he's right and everyone is trying to get his material discredited or he's dead wrong. In either case, he hasn't been shut up and at least one African nation (rather tragically) has become an experiment for his theory. That said, he's still a professor at Berkeley (you'd think that he would be denied a job) has a lab in Germany that he works for, and continues to write and publish. Berkeley's a pretty prominent place and the salary is good for a California university.

Jacques Benveniste had a controversial topic (homeopathy and the "memory" of substances) -- so controversial that the journal wanted to see the experiment replicated. James Randi got involved in this one (which I found interesting), but after he was off the scene, many others tried to reproduce his same effects. One of the main charges was "sloppy statistics" -- and having had my own research hammered for this (I had to go back and redo stuff and have a consultant for the stats) I know that it's just part of the whole cycle and means you got a picky reviewer who thought your work was important. He continues to publish papers which, frankly, can be easily picked apart (given the number of drugs that end up in our water (birth control pills, for instance), every city around the world should be experiencing an almost-zero birth rate even among women who aren't taking the pill).) Nobody stops him from publishing -- but nobody stops others from pointing out the flaws in his work (such as his finding that the homeopathic properties can be transmitted by telephone. So when my daughter calls me and I've just taken analgesics for back pain, she should be cured of her headache by talking to me.)
en.wikipedia.org...

All of the above continue to work and publish and some of them are at very prestigious places. Can you explain how they're suppressed (serious question)?


(silly aside: I'd love it if someone would repress me like they have Fleischmann and give me a job at Berkeley! Quick! Suppress me!! Please!!!)

reply to post by Byrd

Originally posted by Byrd
(Snipped all quotes because they are unscientific nonsense from an unscientific quack that should be denied a job at any academic institution!)

Suppressed enough for you?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/949355f62ce5.jpg[/atsimg]

Anyway, it is incredibly odd when these people claim suppression, repression, oppression, etc. Especially the creationists, who make buckets of money peddling their ideas to large groups.

reply to post by randyvs

Most scientists have dedicated their endeavours towards destroying the natural world ,

so of course they are reluctant to admit that God exists , or could possibly be smarter than them !