Science says stop complaining

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp Science says... If endorphins are released, it isn't rape! I'm not aware of any papers that claim this. I've only heard this type of rhetoric from evangelicals and anti-feminist types, typically used to argue against bodily autonomy (i.e. if the rape was legitimate the body would have "shut down") and to dispute the legitimacy of rape charges/apologize for rape (not rape, just bad sex, etc.) If you have the title or link to any of these papers I'd greatly appreciate it. I don't think I mentioned papers. I was just riffing on the kind of biological determinism in the article of the original post.

All right, thank you for the clarification.

Quote Originally Posted by Karnos

Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Tulayev Perhaps I have misunderstood the tone and tenor of some of the posts, and I'm not trying to lampoon anyone, I'm just trying to get a better ideas as to where folks are coming from. I guess it has more to do with a disdain for scientism and today's "yay-science" pop attitude than any real disdain for science and the pursuit of natural knowledge. Before switching to architecture (which I never practiced anyway) I studied electrical engineering and before that I wanted to enroll in either physics or astronomy. Whatever the case, I have an appreciation for science and honest scientific inquiry, and it would be hypocritical to deny the worth and value of science if I am actually writing this on a computer and sending it your way through a network of fiber optics and servers. However my, and many other people's, problem is with some scientists's (and their fans) belief that science is the only means through which valid knowledge can be acquired (I won't say "truth" because personally I don't believe such thing exists, and even if it did, it probably is unattainable), when in fact it is only a tool that gives valid results for given situations. In this case, the physical, measurable Universe. I find it in really bad taste when many scientifically minded people disdain the humanities, art, literature and philosophy because they don't get results. Pop-science darling Neil de Grasse Tyson was once caught with his pants down saying something like that in a podcast. Stephen Hawkings has said something along those lines as well, and don't get me started with that idiot Lawrence Kraus. These brilliant people are so blinded by their ego and devotion to their field they forget that the reason why the humanities do not produce rocket ships or vaccines is because the humanities do not address such issues. I don't even remember what else I was going to write here, but I'm sure that the smarter members of the community already got it covered. It is not an anti-science stance. It is anti-scientism.

I respect the pop-science icons you mentioned for the actual work they've done in their respective fields, but it does irritate me when they condescend the humanities, the arts, philosophy. The humanities follow the scientific method just as much as astronomy, biology, geology, etc. Science has always been proliferated through art, in particular the biological sciences. The scientific method itself is derived from the school of Skepticism for ####'s sake.
Paleontology in particular wold not generate a fraction of interest from the lay public if it were not for artistic restorations, especially those of the incomparable Charles R. Knight. His pieces are dated, of course, but retain a theatrical, savage beauty akin to a Doré or a Goya.

[trieffiewiles]

Quote Originally Posted by qcrisp

Okay, just remember I'm not the one who's neuroscientifically deterministic. I just wondered what other TLOers make of this kind of thing: http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/...ence-says.html (Really can't say how much I hate that perky, finger-wagging little phrase "according to science".)

Its funny, I've also read apparently serious studies that strongly suggest workplaces wherein the people present regularly swear and vent (absent of hostility, and hostility can be PC as well) are looser so to speak, more adaptable and less stressful than institutions encumbered by rigid and preconceived orthodoxies.

I've seen documentaries that show traumatized people (veterans and former criminals in the cases that come to mind) wherein the subjects in question engaged in alternative treatments and greatly benefited in areas where academically-accepted medicine failed. In one case it was the aforementioned veterans partaking of ayahuasca and speaking with shaman. Another featured reformed gutter punks from the rougher parts of Bangkok participating in a spirit tattoo festival.

If you've seen examples of either such event, you'll know that people engaged with them often give way to frenzy and behave psychotically, which somewhat understandable given the circumstances, yet almost never is anyone hurt. My main question to Mater Stillman would have to be, if real practices you're opposed to can demonstrably benefit those involved where the popular routes have failed, and at harm or cost to none, then who are you to interject with nothing but baseless conjectures in your corner?

I seldom take sides on anything. Accepted medical practices can benefit many, this is observably true enough. Yet they've hardly made the world a non-violent or disease-free utopia have they? There are also simply too many examples of what certain people do in the following links for me to consider pure materialism a valid view of reality.

Beforehand, if anyone present is one of those who actively seeks to disprove anything that even begins to alarm them, well, I honestly don't care if either of those documented have recently been proven fraudulent. Too many unexplained examples exist, of what these men are at least emulating, for me to give any more consideration to naive born-rich boys like Richard Dawkins or Stephen Pinker than I would some hockey-mouthed vagabond carrying a cardboard sign with an apocalyptic message or some unbathed and unattractive hippy who says I should open my mind when I refuse to hug them. That being said, on with the new age tripe that would surely make Mrs. Stillman froth with rage.

Inside the Superhuman World of the Iceman - YouTube

John Chang - Electrical Chi Powers - YouTube

[Robin Davies]

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma

Paleontology in particular wold not generate a fraction of interest from the lay public if it were not for artistic restorations, especially those of the incomparable Charles R. Knight. His pieces are dated, of course, but retain a theatrical, savage beauty akin to a Doré or a Goya.

I agree Knight's work is wonderful.
When I was a lad I was particularly fond of the art of Zdenek Burian in my Prehistoric Animals book.
Zdeněk Burian | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Some of the modern dinosaur artists are good (particularly Douglas Henderson who has a great sense of landscape) but some (like Luis Rey) go overboard with bright colours that look too garish and unconvincing for me.

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma Paleontology in particular wold not generate a fraction of interest from the lay public if it were not for artistic restorations, especially those of the incomparable Charles R. Knight. His pieces are dated, of course, but retain a theatrical, savage beauty akin to a Doré or a Goya. I agree Knight's work is wonderful. When I was a lad I was particularly fond of the art of Zdenek Burian in my Prehistoric Animals book. ZdenÄ›k Burian | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Some of the modern dinosaur artists are good (particularly Douglas Henderson who has a great sense of landscape) but some (like Luis Rey) go overboard with bright colours that look too garish and unconvincing for me.

I was unaware that Burian's illustrations were collected into an art book.
There's a charm in Rey for me, which might stem from my affection for very colorful birds.

[teguififthzeal]

"Science says... If endorphins are released, it isn't rape!"

That's a really messed up thing to write

[bendk]

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma Paleontology in particular wold not generate a fraction of interest from the lay public if it were not for artistic restorations, especially those of the incomparable Charles R. Knight. His pieces are dated, of course, but retain a theatrical, savage beauty akin to a Doré or a Goya. I agree Knight's work is wonderful. When I was a lad I was particularly fond of the art of Zdenek Burian in my Prehistoric Animals book. ZdenÄ›k Burian | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Some of the modern dinosaur artists are good (particularly Douglas Henderson who has a great sense of landscape) but some (like Luis Rey) go overboard with bright colours that look too garish and unconvincing for me.

For years I have been looking for a dinosaur book that I used to check out at the library when I was a kid that featured Burian's art. I know it had the Brachiosaurus illustration. Incredible that his name showed up on TLO. I also enjoy the newer artwork featuring colorful feathered dinosaurs. I feed the dinos everyday.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[Robin Davies]

I can't get used to feathered dinosaurs.
I still prefer to think of them as majestic scaly reptilian monsters rather than overgrown turkeys.

[gveranon]

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies

I can't get used to feathered dinosaurs. I still prefer to think of them as majestic scaly reptilian monsters rather than overgrown turkeys.

Do not underestimate turkeys!

Turkey Attack Compilation !!! - YouTube

Quote Originally Posted by gveranon

Quote Originally Posted by Robin Davies I can't get used to feathered dinosaurs. I still prefer to think of them as majestic scaly reptilian monsters rather than overgrown turkeys. Do not underestimate turkeys! Turkey Attack Compilation !!! - YouTube

Who says Jurassic Park would have lost the horror element with feathered dinosaurs??