What do you find the most great scientific accomplishment ?

[Crivens]

Science is not a religion, but people keep treating it as one. It is the very human way of attributing things you don't understand on some religious thing, like Thor and his hammer causing thunder, stuff like that. It's human. And these days we see the economy as a religion, with analysts as high priests. Politics, society, ...
Why not science? Joe sixpack or Ivan Ivanovich has not the knowledge base to understand climate. But some high priest tells him not to believe in that heresy and drive a bigger guzzler. Belief is easy. Trust is hard. You first must understand that there is uncertainty. Everywhere. And accept that. Question everything. Especially authority.

 

[ralphbsz]

Many millennia ago, cave men were hungry and horny. They put their fingers into the wet mud (clay), mixed it with ashes, and on the cave wall painted the things he wanted: deer, and humans of the gender he desired. They found a hollow log and hit it with a stick, and it sounded interesting. They sat outside, and wondered what the little dots on the sky were, and why they were only visible at night. This was the beginning of the "sapiens" part of "Homo sapiens", and it is what distinguishes us from monkeys.

By the way, moments after hitting the hollow log with a stick, the cave man tried different sticks, different shapes, and started the first collection of drum sticks. Which goes to prove that playing percussion is mostly a way to collect hardware; it's more about the equipment than about the music.

Old joke: give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and he'll spend all his weekends on the lake, and all his money on fishing gear.

 

[PMc]

Science is not a religion, but people keep treating it as one. It is the very human way of attributing things you don't understand on some religious thing,

That religions thing is called belief, and it works. Believe in yourself and you will achieve things. Do not believe and you will not achieve. As simple as that.
People keep telling me that things are true or not true, that things are real or not real. But reality is only a matter of negotiation, it doesn't matter much. What matters is what you believe, because that is what you will achieve.

like Thor and his hammer causing thunder, stuff like that. It's human. And these days we see the economy as a religion, with analysts as high priests. Politics, society, ...

Last century we still believed in a few things, like building the Internet, or landing on the moon. And we achieved. Profits were only the consequence of achieving.
Now profits are considered an end in itself, something that must happen in any case - and so reality has to be adjusted accordingly.

Why not science?

Because science is bogus.
There was the stance of the age of enlightenment: let the bright light of science shine over the dark ages of clerical dogma. And then the bright light of science did shine over Hiroshima.

Science in itself, without wisdom and ethics, is bogus. (In the 80s the hackers did love John Brunner's "Shockwave Rider", because he did understand exactly that)

The profits are out of question, obviousely. But they got more sophisticated in what to make people believe in order to achive them. Futures in uranium are greatly rising due to the climate lie. But that's not the real point in it; the real point is to make people having cars that could well run for 20 years or more, buy extremely overpriced new cars that contain not much more than a smartphone. Big business - just give them the right things to believe and they comply. Believe is everything.

But the most important is: make them believe that they can NOT achieve anything. Make them believe that the world is far too complicated for them to understand, that they have to sit isolated in their houses, only be docile and consume, watch their smartphone and believe in the scientists.

 

[astyle]

Because science is bogus.
There was the stance of the age of enlightenment: let the bright light of science shine over the dark ages of clerical dogma. And then the bright light of science did shine over Hiroshima.

Science in itself, without wisdom and ethics, is bogus.

I beg to differ about that claim of science being bogus... A fire will burn paper, because paper is flammable. And no, this is not a prediction of some event, this is just a statement of capability. Yeah, there is a direct correlation between paper being flammable and the idea that fire can destroy paper. Science does have a logical process to establishing correlation AND causation. It did debunk a lot of misconceptions - like the idea that a shamanic dance will bring rain, for example. Most of the time, you'll just end up with a perspiring dancer, but no rain. This is why Saudis and Chinese are buying farmland in the US to grow alfalfa for camel feed.

There will always be stupid ways to use any scientific advancement - selfies in dangerous places, GPS directing your car into water off a boat ramp, you name it. Just because someone is a moron who should not be driving without sensible adult supervision, that doesn't change the fact of how GPS even works - with all those satellites orbiting this blue planet. What do you want to do with somebody who did not bother to learn even basic facts to keep themselves safe and alive? Make 'em believe in something, box 'em up and leave 'em alone.

 

[Crivens]

But reality is only a matter of negotiation, it doesn't matter much.

Excuse me? You can't be serious. If people tell you that, they are pulling your leg. Jumping off a bridge and negotiating with reality that the ground is very soft... does not work.

 

[astyle]

Excuse me? You can't be serious. If people tell you that, they are pulling your leg. Jumping off a bridge and negotiating with reality that the ground is very soft... does not work.

Ummm... when PMc said that 'Reality is a matter of negotiation', I think he meant 'You create reality', as in do your planning ahead.

If you jump off a bridge, do you tie a bungee cord or make sure there's a river at the bottom? If you don't do your planning and prepare a landing spot for yourself, it's your own fault if you get hurt doing dumb stuff. Yep, you negotiate for permission to tie that bungee cord to the bridge's guardrails. You negotiate to make sure the river is deep enough to dive into. In this way, if you consistently negotiate reality to fit what you're trying to do, negotiations stop mattering because they're taken care of in the background. Just like Zuck's agents negotiated the reality of Kauai being for sale. It did not matter that officially, Kauai was not for sale - Zuck's agents made things happen so that it did go up for sale and get sold to Zuck anyway. That's what PMc 's quote really means in this context.

 

[PMc]

Excuse me? You can't be serious. If people tell you that, they are pulling your leg.

Nobody pulling my leg, because I figured it out all myself (and it wasn't easy).

Jumping off a bridge and negotiating with reality that the ground is very soft... does not work.

No, because it is already negotiated, and you would have a hard time truly believing otherwise. I'll get to the "truly believing" in a minute.

Science does have a logical process to establishing correlation AND causation. It did debunk a lot of misconceptions - like the idea that a shamanic dance will bring rain, for example. Most of the time, you'll just end up with a perspiring dancer, but no rain.

Let's start from here, because that's right to the point.
Why is it so important to debunk those shamanic misconceptions? Because these savage people, believing in shamanism -practically all of them- live in a well-balanced, sustainable, healthy relationship with nature. So how could we teach them our advanced way of exploiting, poluting and destroying nature, if we would let them continue to believe in shamanism?

Ring a bell, somewhere? No, but that's just corrollary. Lets get closer to the core.

If you bring so called "scientific proof" that shamanism cannot work, then certainly shamanism will no longer work.
That's because everybody has the same rights. When the shaman can use techniques to alter his mind in order to impose his idea of rain onto reality, and thereby make it rain - then the scientist can as well impose his idea (that shamanism is impossible) onto reality and thereby make shamanism impossible. As easy as that.

So, why does that work? There are two approaches to understanding the universe. One is: there was once a big bang, then suns and planets formed, organic compounds arranged themselves, somehow, and out of these, finally, just by accident, a thing with brains appeared, called human. Nobody can explain how that might be possible to happen, but people are made to believe it.
And nobody, until today, can explain the difference between a living being, and the very same collection of molecules which are a dead being. We can describe many of the chemical processes inside a living being (but by far not all), but we have no idea what makes it living.

The other approach is the Goethean: mind over matter. There has to be a mind first in order for matter to even come into existance. But, while the big-bang-story has a timeline, this one is outside of time. Because time is only a by-product from the process when energy crystallizes into matter (see general relativity). The mind is normally not subdued unto time, and time doesn't exist a-priori, rather the mind falls (from grace) into matter. Religious literature explains the details about the fall.

So, which one of these two is true?

There is a way to make sense of all of this, and that is psalm 82:6 I have said, ye are Gods.
God is not a distinct entity, and creation is not a distinct process. Instead, when we say, we "discover" the universe, we actually create the universe. And that's the process of negotiating reality.

Now, as I said, belief is everything. But truly believing happens only by accident. Why - because you have a sub-conscious, and that happens to belive in it's own things. And you would need a full featured psychoanalysis to even know all these strains of sub-conscious, not talking about getting them into one coherent belief. But if by any means you would be able to achive that kind of mind-control, then indeed you could jump from the skyscraper and fall onto soft ground (if there were any point in doing so).


As I said, I had a hard time getting to these ideas. And then I spent a couple of years strongly believing that I had gone mad. Until I figured that this is not even something new; this is what mystics knew for thousands of years already.

 

[PMc]

If you jump off a bridge, do you tie a bungee cord or make sure there's a river at the bottom? If you don't do your planning and prepare a landing spot for yourself, it's your own fault if you get hurt doing dumb stuff. Yep, you negotiate for permission to tie that bungee cord to the bridge's guardrails. You negotiate to make sure the river is deep enough to dive into. In this way, if you consistently negotiate reality to fit what you're trying to do, negotiations stop mattering because they're taken care of in the background. Just like Zuck's agents negotiated the reality of Kauai being for sale. It did not matter that officially, Kauai was not for sale - Zuck's agents made things happen so that it did go up for sale and get sold to Zuck anyway. That's what PMc 's quote really means in this context.

Thats the difficulty when you walk a terrain where things are already well known. Then usually you need leverage.

It gets more interesting where things are not yet well known. For instance, some time ago physicists discussed if the universe would either consist of 13 dimensions and have strings, or consist of 17 dimensions and not have strings. Both approaches would make the equations work.
So that's what they're doing: they negotiate how many dimensions the universe has.

 

[astyle]

Any idea has limits beyond which the idea stops making sense...

If you bring so called "scientific proof" that shamanism cannot work, then certainly shamanism will no longer work.
That's because everybody has the same rights. When the shaman can use techniques to alter his mind in order to impose his idea of rain onto reality, and thereby make it rain - then the scientist can as well impose his idea (that shamanism is impossible) onto reality and thereby make shamanism impossible. As easy as that.

Asking if shamanism can work is not exactly a scientifically valid question... It's not about imposing ideas from one camp or another. And nobody is able to impose their will on rain. One can build a monster facility with complex plumbing and lots of showerheads, and a single valve to control water flow for the entire facility - in that scenario, if the shaman dances correctly for the owner of that facility, it can rain inside that very facility. Inside that facility, asking if shamanism works to generate rain would be valid. If the owner likes how Shaman A dances (as opposed to say, Shaman B), then the question of whether shamanism works becomes valid (in which case, if the owner hates shamanic dances, then one can claim that inside the facility, shamanism does NOT work)... The important part being inside the facility...

The other approach is the Goethean: mind over matter. There has to be a mind first in order for matter to even come into existance. But, while the big-bang-story has a timeline, this one is outside of time. Because time is only a by-product from the process when energy crystallizes into matter (see general relativity). The mind is normally not subdued unto time, and time doesn't exist a-priori, rather the mind falls (from grace) into matter. Religious literature explains the details about the fall.

The 'mind over matter' idea, as it relates to shamanism, is also not without limits. One cannot think rain into existence... One can think a giant facility (like the one earlier in this post) into existence if there's also some doing going on, as well. Munchausen's Syndrome is an example of how one can convince themselves that they are sick (while in reality they are not)... that IS 'mind over matter'...

 

[bgavin]

So many to choose from.

When I was wheeled into the OR for a cardiac bypass... I got a glimpse of what it must be like to actually be onboard the Starship Enterprise.
After 50 years in the computer business, I remain in awe of the hardware and software developers of these marvelous machines.
They had five operating theaters, all of them were wall-to-wall with high tech hardware.

 

[Crivens]

they negotiate how many dimensions the universe has.

No. They negotiate what theory fits the observations and proofs better. The universe will not care about these sand grain dwelling apes in a small star system in a small galactic arm of a mediocre galaxy at the border of a big void.

Recently cosmology had an interesting state. There are more than one way to measure the expansion rate of the universe. Results for method A were inside the error bars of B, and vice versa. Then measuring technically got better and the error bars No longer overlapped. Now we have two valid definitions. One is wrong, both are wrong, or both are right and there is something going on we have to figure out. What is it? Man, I love science. It produces not only answers but so many new questions.

 

[homeadm]

It is very difficult to choose one accomplishment. A characteristic feature of science is the fact, that one achievement allows for another. But indeed, the theory of relativity, mentioned earlier, is fascinating and groundbreaking.

Recently cosmology had an interesting state. There are more than one way to measure the expansion rate of the universe. Results for method A were inside the error bars of B, and vice versa. Then measuring technically got better and the error bars No longer overlapped. Now we have two valid definitions. One is wrong, both are wrong, or both are right and there is something going on we have to figure out. What is it?

This is disappointing indeed. Did you heard of a third method, developed by Wendy Freedman to solve the mystery? Here is a presentation by Dr. David Kipping, a Carl Sagan fellow (who I already introduced in topic Will the universe contract):

 

[PMc]

No. They negotiate what theory fits the observations and proofs better.

That is a belief. It is probably what scientists believe.
And arguing about believe systems is pointless. But this specific one is a harmful belief, because it disconnects mankind from nature and makes nature a mere observable.
When "primitive" cultures considered their surroundings animistic and themselves in a mutual relationship with them, they would not get the idea to exploit and pollute nature for profit.

Recently cosmology had an interesting state. There are more than one way to measure the expansion rate of the universe. Results for method A were inside the error bars of B, and vice versa. Then measuring technically got better and the error bars No longer overlapped. Now we have two valid definitions. One is wrong, both are wrong, or both are right and there is something going on we have to figure out.

And which of the two would result in less people killed in wars? Or people living in healthier circumstances?
Scientists are well constrained to playgrounds where they cannot seriousely endanger the profits. And the major profits come from war and from iatrogenic medicine.

 

[astyle]

And the major profits come from war and from iatrogenic medicine.

Regular medicine, too - and ooh, ooh, it's a branch of the aforementioned science, the same thing that debunked the correlations between shamanic dances and rain Well, looking for the fountain of eternal youth is really an exercise in eternal futility, no matter the extent to which we try to use logic to drive the process

 

[PMc]

Regular medicine, too - and ooh, ooh, it's a branch of the aforementioned science, the same thing that debunked the correlations between shamanic dances and rain

You're certainly free to believe what You want. I for my part, when the doctors came to the point that there is no other way than to cut away pieces of me -and I did not appreciate that-, a friendly witch practising faith-healing fixed the problem within 24 hours.
Now I'm a curious person, and experiencing such as the subject concerned, allowed me to perceive and understand how and why it works. And that's enough for me, my questions are answered - anybody else may believe what they want.

I am not concerned with regular medicine - it can do certain things, and it has limits where other means work better. I'm concerned with iatrogenic medicine, because there is a simple equation: the more ill people are, the more medicine can be sold.

Well, looking for the fountain of eternal youth is really an exercise in eternal futility, no matter the extent to which we try to use logic to drive the process

People are working on that one. That guy who bought that caribbean island would certainly be interested in living forever. It's the next thing they want, and they will find a means.

 

[astyle]

You're certainly free to believe what You want. I for my part, when the doctors came to the point that there is no other way than to cut away pieces of me -and I did not appreciate that-, a friendly witch practising faith-healing fixed the problem within 24 hours.
Now I'm a curious person, and experiencing such as the subject concerned, allowed me to perceive and understand how and why it works. And that's enough for me, my questions are answered - anybody else may believe what they want.

I am not concerned with regular medicine - it can do certain things, and it has limits where other means work better. I'm concerned with iatrogenic medicine, because there is a simple equation: the more ill people are, the more medicine can be sold.


People are working on that one. That guy who bought that caribbean island would certainly be interested in living forever. It's the next thing they want, and they will find a means.

There's plenty of medical stories where someone was acting delusional, and psychologists were ready to give a mental illness diagnosis - only to discover that the real problem was inflammation of pituitary gland or endometriosis or something else that is actually easily treatable if you only bother to check for it. Pretending that you don't have a problem when you actually have one that is easily fixable if detected - that can mean the difference between life and death, to be honest.

Faith-based healing is a bit like physical therapy - It can make you feel better if you stick with the program and have faith that sticking with the program is what it will take. I personally would question whether the problem was actually fixed within 24 hours or if the relief was just temporary.

 

[codeedog]

Moon landing.

66 years between the first power airplane flight and humans landing on the moon.

Sixty six years—the span of one human life.

 

[ralphbsz]

66 years between the first power airplane flight and humans landing on the moon.

If my math is correct, that was 55 years ago.

 

[PMc]

There's plenty of medical stories where someone was acting delusional, and psychologists were ready to give a mental illness diagnosis - only to discover that the real problem was inflammation of pituitary gland or endometriosis or something else that is actually easily treatable if you only bother to check for it. Pretending that you don't have a problem when you actually have one that is easily fixable if detected - that can mean the difference between life and death, to be honest.

Badly executed medicine is yet anther matter.

Faith-based healing is a bit like physical therapy - It can make you feel better if you stick with the program and have faith that sticking with the program is what it will take. I personally would question whether the problem was actually fixed within 24 hours or if the relief was just temporary.

No, there is no program in such a sense. The client does nothing and the fix is instanteous. Lazarus didn't need a program to come out of the grave.
In other words, not patch the data, fix the code.

Let's grab a simple example: repetitive strain injury. That the thing you may get when you sit too much at the computer.

Option one, you go to the doctor. You get a prescription for painkillers and anti-inflammatory stuff. That is patching the data. Pain is a message from the body that it is operated in a wrong way, i.e. data. Just patch the message out, and problem solved.
That is the scientific proven way, because in the double blind studies all participants will report that the drug helps them.
Only, the body is still operated in a wrong way, and must now find a more dramatic way to make that clear, i.e. more severe symptoms. So that is what we call iatrogenic medicine, because it makes things just worse.

Option two, physical therapy. May be a really good idea in this case, and may actually fix the problem. Only you need to do it, continuing.

Option three, faith-healing. Hack into the foreign mind and change the movement patters for the arm in the programs themselves, so that it is no longer used in a wrong way. Root cause fix, instantiously and permanently (but it may take some time for the actual healing to proceed).
Scholarly medicine calls this "spontaneous self-healing". They know it is possible, but have no idea how it works. And if we would tell them that one can just hack into another mind and change it, they would be even more horrified than the NASA guys were in 1986.

 

[astyle]

Badly executed medicine is yet anther matter.


No, there is no program in such a sense. The client does nothing and the fix is instanteous. Lazarus didn't need a program to come out of the grave.
In other words, not patch the data, fix the code.

Let's grab a simple example: repetitive strain injury. That the thing you may get when you sit too much at the computer.

Option one, you go to the doctor. You get a prescription for painkillers and anti-inflammatory stuff. That is patching the data. Pain is a message from the body that it is operated in a wrong way, i.e. data. Just patch the message out, and problem solved.
That is the scientific proven way, because in the double blind studies all participants will report that the drug helps them.
Only, the body is still operated in a wrong way, and must now find a more dramatic way to make that clear, i.e. more severe symptoms. So that is what we call iatrogenic medicine, because it makes things just worse.

Option two, physical therapy. May be a really good idea in this case, and may actually fix the problem. Only you need to do it, continuing.

Option three, faith-healing. Hack into the foreign mind and change the movement patters for the arm in the programs themselves, so that it is no longer used in a wrong way. Root cause fix, instantiously and permanently (but it may take some time for the actual healing to proceed).
Scholarly medicine calls this "spontaneous self-healing". They know it is possible, but have no idea how it works. And if we would tell them that one can just hack into another mind and change it, they would be even more horrified than the NASA guys were in 1986.

What do you think faith-based healing even is? Here's a good wikipedia entry that explains it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing

BTW, your 'Option 3' is NOT faith-based healing, but rather rather, rewriting the program itself for better physical ergonomics of the user - like properly reacting to weird-shaped mice, capturing eye movement to move the mouse cursor, etc - all the stuff that the Forums users here should be familiar with. That is nothing more than software engineering, approaching the problem of ergonomics from a different, unconventional angle.

Pay attention to the Criticism section of the Wikipedia page. Correlation does not imply causation. Faith-based healing does rely very heavily on placebo effect...

And yes, there are stories where someone was declared clinically dead, but in fact was stubbornly alive, and 'revived' with a bit of medical help.

 

[PMc]

What do you think faith-based healing even is? Here's a good wikipedia entry that explains it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing

Now it gets crazy. Why should I read wikipedia for things I have first-hand experience with? Do we now ask wikipedia what we see when we look out of the window? (Or, even better: we just don't look out of the window anymore - why should we, now that we have wikipedia?)

BTW, your 'Option 3' is NOT faith-based healing, but rather rather, rewriting the program itself for better physical ergonomics of the user - like properly reacting to weird-shaped mice, capturing eye movement to move the mouse cursor, etc - all the stuff that the Forums users here should be familiar with. That is nothing more than software engineering, approaching the problem of ergonomics from a different, unconventional angle.

Sure it's just software engineering - but where do you learn that the human mind can be engineered? And how would you engineer, say, changing of sexual preference, or removal of phobia?

Pay attention to the Criticism section of the Wikipedia page. Correlation does not imply causation. Faith-based healing does rely very heavily on placebo effect...

Absolutely. If you shoot yourself into the foot, it may be just a correlation that it hurts. Or hallucination.

That's the effect of dogma: dogma says faith-healing must not work. So, effects cannot be caused by faith-healing, and we must name them differently, we must name them correlation instead. Thats fine - if I was sitting in a wheelchair and can stand up and walk again, I don't care how you name it.

Maybe, when I fix a bug in the Berkeley OS, we should also call that correlation. But then, I can remove my fix, and have the defective behaviour back, and install it again and things work again - so it's a rather strong correlation. Out of curiousity, I tried the same thing with faith-healing, i.e. switch an illness in somebody on and off. Works wonderfully.

 

[astyle]

Now it gets crazy. Why should I read wikipedia for things I have first-hand experience with? Do we now ask wikipedia what we see when we look out of the window? (Or, even better: we just don't look out of the window anymore - why should we, now that we have wikipedia?)

Because first-hand experience with something is not certifiable or provable. You very well could have been dealing with a scammer who disappeared, and you have no recourse or the ability to explain to anyone what the hell even happened. There's gotta be some kind of common ground that everyone can agree on is correct, like Wikipedia or the FreeBSD Handbook. This 'common ground' is what you use to explain to others what the hell even happened.

but where do you learn that the human mind can be engineered?

Ever hear of social engineering and the computer security holes it can create? Kevin Mitinck (who died recently) was all about that, BTW. It's pretty difficult to change the public's mind about something. Yeah, that's called politics in simple terms, but there is such a thing as 'engineering the opinion of the public'...

Absolutely. If you shoot yourself into the foot, it may be just a correlation that it hurts. Or hallucination.

Ever hear of pain tolerance? or anesthesiology? What about your own idea of 'mind over matter' that you brought up earlier in this conversation?

That's the effect of dogma: dogma says faith-healing must not work.

That is highly dependent on the audience. Depending on who you talk to, you'll also hear that dogma says that faith-healing must actually work, just look at all those people who underwent faith-based healing treatment that worked so wonderfully for them... Among practitioners of faith-based healing, the dogma is that faith-based healing works, traditional medicine be damned. And then they are surprised at being arrested and prosecuted when their patient dies from a treatable condition.

Maybe, when I fix a bug in the Berkeley OS, we should also call that correlation. But then, I can remove my fix, and have the defective behaviour back, and install it again and things work again - so it's a rather strong correlation.

In the world of programming and computers, there is such a thing as 'proof of concept'...

Out of curiousity, I tried the same thing with faith-healing, i.e. switch an illness in somebody on and off. Works wonderfully.

Switching an illness on and off... You mean like stepping into a dusty factory and sneezing? And then the sneezing stops when you step out...

 

[PMc]

Because first-hand experience with something is not certifiable or provable.

Okay, so we should disregard all first-hand experience, and instead rely only on statements from people who have no authentic knowledge of a matter and know it only from hearsay?

You very well could have been dealing with a scammer who disappeared, and you have no recourse or the ability to explain to anyone what the hell even happened.

That is an interesting argument against first-hand knowledge.

Let's look at this from the Theory of Games. Lets presume I know a technique of faith-healing, that allows me to heal myself and my beloved ones in a way more effective than scholarly medicine.
Then you have two practical options: either, you could just disregard this as of no concern to you. Or, you could try and find out how that might work, in order so that you also can heal yourself and your beloved ones (that would, obviousely, work with faith - as the name already says)..

But neither of these options seems to interest You. Instead, Your agenda seems to be that I should stop to believe into my own experience, and should instead believe in second-hand experiences from others.
The big question is: why?

Historically this is not a new agenda. It was the agenda of the roman church medieval: only experience in accordance with their dogma would be acceptable; any other experience would be considered heretic. And as a means to establish this, they had an inquisition, torture chambers, and the convenience of publicly burning people at the stake.

So, what do You have? The approach that I should no longer believe in my own experience implies that I cound no longer heal myself and my beloved ones, which implies that I and my beloved ones have to suffer more.
Why should that be in any way attactive to me? Or, what do You offer in compensation?

(As far as the roman catholic church is concerned, they indeed think that people should suffer as much as possible, because that makes them eligible for what they call "paradise". I cannot confirm that idea from my own experience, and anyway, it should only apply to those who adhere to the roman catholic ideology.)

There's gotta be some kind of common ground that everyone can agree on is correct, like Wikipedia or the FreeBSD Handbook. This 'common ground' is what you use to explain to others what the hell even happened.

I never read the handbook; if something's spooky, I usually read the source - because that is, as I understand it, first-hand - and as already mentioned, I generally prefer first-hand.

But there seems indeed to be an agenda. insofar that people should not rely on first-hand experience. In most (commercial) software it is forbidden to read the source. And in most religions it is forbidden to talk to God directly. Instead, one must use -and pay- a priest as intermediary.

The big question is: why is that so?

Ever hear of social engineering and the computer security holes it can create? Kevin Mitinck (who died recently) was all about that,

Yeah, that Kevin, sure. I actually never met that one; I did, however, meet those guys Cliff Stoll wrote a book about, ten years earlier.

BTW. It's pretty difficult to change the public's mind about something. Yeah, that's called politics in simple terms, but there is such a thing as 'engineering the opinion of the public'...

That is called psychological warfare - and it is indeed something you don't normally learn at the evening school. It is nevertheless an established art and science.

That is one of the main reasons why I prefer first-hand experience. Because second-hand sources like Wikipedia are co-shaped by various actors active in PsyOps.

Ever hear of pain tolerance? or anesthesiology? What about your own idea of 'mind over matter' that you brought up earlier in this conversation?

Indeed, you might shoot yourself in the foot and not even notice it.

That is highly dependent on the audience. Depending on who you talk to, you'll also hear that dogma says that faith-healing must actually work, just look at all those people who underwent faith-based healing treatment that worked so wonderfully for them... Among practitioners of faith-based healing, the dogma is that faith-based healing works, traditional medicine be damned. And then they are surprised at being arrested and prosecuted when their patient dies from a treatable condition.

That's why I take neither party all too serious, and rather prefer to read the source. (In this case that won't work with usual programming languages. It does, however, work with systems theory - becuase systems theory applies to any system.)

 

[astyle]

Okay, so we should disregard all first-hand experience, and instead rely only on statements from people who have no authentic knowledge of a matter and know it only from hearsay?

That is an interesting argument against first-hand knowledge.

Let's look at this from the Theory of Games. Lets presume I know a technique of faith-healing, that allows me to heal myself and my beloved ones in a way more effective than scholarly medicine.
Then you have two practical options: either, you could just disregard this as of no concern to you. Or, you could try and find out how that might work, in order so that you also can heal yourself and your beloved ones (that would, obviousely, work with faith - as the name already says)..

But neither of these options seems to interest You. Instead, Your agenda seems to be that I should stop to believe into my own experience, and should instead believe in second-hand experiences from others.
The big question is: why?

Historically this is not a new agenda. It was the agenda of the roman church medieval: only experience in accordance with their dogma would be acceptable; any other experience would be considered heretic. And as a means to establish this, they had an inquisition, torture chambers, and the convenience of publicly burning people at the stake.

So, what do You have? The approach that I should no longer believe in my own experience implies that I cound no longer heal myself and my beloved ones, which implies that I and my beloved ones have to suffer more.
Why should that be in any way attactive to me? Or, what do You offer in compensation?

(As far as the roman catholic church is concerned, they indeed think that people should suffer as much as possible, because that makes them eligible for what they call "paradise". I cannot confirm that idea from my own experience, and anyway, it should only apply to those who adhere to the roman catholic ideology.)

Well, let me rephrase myself here... First-hand experience is a good start, but it does need to be verifiable and reproducible. Take the very existence of whales - most people only know about whales from books like Moby Dick and accounts of people who have actually seen whales in person. But to see the whales in person is actually one hell of an undertaking - you gotta know how to get to a good spot, have a good camera, etc. Fortunately, the experience is reproducible, there are commercial tours that advertise that kind of experience on the Internet - pay for the ticket, show up at the harbor, board the boat... and come back with tales of having seen a fish that is bigger than your house. Who's gonna believe you on THAT? Oh, and BTW, I have physically seen whales show off their tails in Hawaii

Believing in your own experience is great, nothing wrong with that. It creates positive memories for you. In your case, a speedy recovery for you and your loved ones. Thing is: That is of limited value beyond the group that you and your loved ones belong to. Just because the group recovered, there's no guarantee that a different group will recover with the same extent of success. It's a 50-50 proposition at best. And mainstream medical establishment, with its ability to verify treatments as reliable (or not), moves the needle of probability of successful recovery from 50% to like 90-95%... Not to mention that in the mainstream medical establishments, information gets curated and organized to a much greater extent than faith-based healing. For example, knowing what works, what doesn't, and why. And it's standardized worldwide (A bit of a stretch, but consider Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders (MSF)).

But there seems indeed to be an agenda. insofar that people should not rely on first-hand experience. In most (commercial) software it is forbidden to read the source. And in most religions it is forbidden to talk to God directly. Instead, one must use -and pay- a priest as intermediary.

The big question is: why is that so?

For commercial software, the agenda is fame and profit. For religions - some do allow praying to God directly, some don't. History is full of stories of how people disagreed with one feature of their local religion, then another, went to war over that, discovered other continents, etc. I stopped caring about religion per se a long time ago, but most of them contain some useful ideas, like for people to get along with each other...

That is called psychological warfare - and it is indeed something you don't normally learn at the evening school. It is nevertheless an established art and science.

That is one of the main reasons why I prefer first-hand experience. Because second-hand sources like Wikipedia are co-shaped by various actors active in PsyOps.

I think that 'psychological warfare' is inaccurate here - it's more about using propaganda to affect morale and motivation of people, rather than merely changing their minds about something.

And first-hand experience - sometimes, it's just difficult to obtain. You gonna blow your money on a ticket to Hawaii just to see whales in person, or are you content with reading about whales and watching them on Youtube?

Also, some countries have actually prohibited access to Wikipedia, and implemented firewalls to enforce that - I wonder why?

The way I see it, faith-based healing is popular in gaming (because it's easy to implement as game code), but that does not translate very well to reality.

That's why I take neither party all too serious, and rather prefer to read the source. (In this case that won't work with usual programming languages. It does, however, work with systems theory - becuase systems theory applies to any system.)

It's hard to trust a book written by a faith-based healer - what works for one practitioner may turn out to be deadly in the hands of another, with no good way to really verify and reproduce what happened.

As for programming languages - I'm pretty sure that a lot of compilers that are in Ports - they do come with source code that you're welcome to read. Just get a source tarball for say,
lang/gcc...

 

[SoBe]

What do you find the most great scientific accomplishment ?
Quantum-mechanics , general-relativity, AI ?

The Commodore S61 Calculator