Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : History's effect on Religion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Volsi Mimir who wrote (111)	5/14/2003 9:48:03 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 520

I don't think "no problem" is the right criteria for acceptance or not, the ability to propose something like that and using a language agreeable to present that, will engage those that understand the mechanics(what where how why) of the result by the author. This way the arguments are deemed "rational" and maybe proved, questioned, or shown false- the examination is outside the person... If only this was the case. I try to keep up with the scientific news as much as I can. And I have come to the conclusion that it is rife with a culture that deems belief in God or in the whole being greater than the sum of its parts as blasphemy. There is a culture that looks down upon such attitudes and no scientist expects to adopt those views into his theories and remain respected. An example of this, which I remember clearly from a few years ago, is this: Some scientists were experimenting on effects of environment on subjects. They got themselves a bunch of white mice and they kept them in as identical a setting as they could. The article did not say, but it seems reasonable to assume they picked "twins" or something like it for their experiment. Everyday at about the same time an experimenter would come in to weigh and check on the mice. At the end of the experiment they noticed that the mice were not behaving identically. The mice showed different food preferences. And they showed small variations on what activities (or toys) they prefered. This was so even though the whole experiment was designed to provide identical settings. So what conclusion did our bright scientists draw from the experiment? A normal person may think that the mice had different food preferences because...hey they like different foods because they are different mice. But our scientists couldn't bring themselves to conclude there may be more to personality and existence than pure bio-chemical machines exposed to environmental stimuli. So their conclusion was that small difference in the environment, as in how many seconds the mice were held in the palm of the experimenter, lead to large differences in behavior and personality. How reasonable does that sound?