Posts: 856
Threads: 27
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
Don't log on for a few days and come back to one hell of a read lol.
What I can add from personal experience; I think a lot of Kate's article resonates with me and I dare say a lot of women in the LGBTQI community. In saying that, I have no doubt that the same happens to men (albeit not quite in the same quantities) in regards to people thinking they can 'convert' a same sex attracted person.
What I do find ironic though is that a lot of the types of men who think it's ok to try and 'convert' a lesbian, are the exact same men who would freak the hell out and get aggressive if a gay man did the same to them.
Posts: 2,792
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
(12-10-2018, 12:56 AM)Navy Maven link Wrote:Don't log on for a few days and come back to one hell of a read lol.
What I do find ironic though is that a lot of the types of men who think it's ok to try and 'convert' a lesbian, are the exact same men who would freak the hell out and get aggressive if a gay man did the same to them.
Too true
Let’s go BIG !
Posts: 20,141
Threads: 165
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
(12-10-2018, 12:41 AM)Baggers link Wrote:Maybe one day we'll understand that science, philosophy and spirituality are all relevant to the human condition and each shouldn't attempt to protect its domain by invalidating the other based on their rules.
Which is exactly Sheldrake's point. A number of materialist scientists in recent times have conceded that there may be more to it, and have accepted that maybe other forms of knowledge like panpsychism may in fact have merit.
Posts: 29,292
Threads: 289
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
(12-10-2018, 12:34 AM)PaulP link Wrote:His work has nothing to do with invalidating science - his work has to do with simultaneously getting materialist science to understand its limits and also to get materialist science to accept other valid ways of looking at the world, that lie outside its comfort zone.
There are no different sciences, that's reads like an attempt to label science from a dogmatic perspective like all the different religions.
There is only science and the scientific method, there are different categories of knowledge which are built on science and the scientific method.
Discussion around different sciences is a limitation of language and human perception.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"
Posts: 29,292
Threads: 289
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
(12-10-2018, 12:45 AM)PaulP link Wrote:He has a science background, not only in training, but having a father who was also a scientist, and having being surrounded by scientists his whole life. He is not trying to invalidate science, merely trying to get it to expand its horizons. He is not anti-science at all, he is anti scientific dogma, and therefore anti the current incarnation of materialist science.
Not really a guarantee of anything is it.
Hitler sang in the church choir and contemplated becoming a priest in his youth, as an adolescent it's documented he had a strong desired to become an artist!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"
Posts: 29,292
Threads: 289
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
12-10-2018, 02:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2018, 02:43 AM by LP.)
(12-10-2018, 12:56 AM)Navy Maven link Wrote:Don't log on for a few days and come back to one hell of a read lol.
What I can add from personal experience; I think a lot of Kate's article resonates with me and I dare say a lot of women in the LGBTQI community. In saying that, I have no doubt that the same happens to men (albeit not quite in the same quantities) in regards to people thinking they can 'convert' a same sex attracted person.
What I do find ironic though is that a lot of the types of men who think it's ok to try and 'convert' a lesbian, are the exact same men who would freak the hell out and get aggressive if a gay man did the same to them.
But NM, if a gay male happened to approach me in error, before I rejected his oveture and without knowledge I wasn't gay, I wouldn't be justified in giving him a label and ask he be persecuted. If ten different individuals do the same, they are all a priori until they become recidivist.
An attractive human is probably an attractive human regardless of their sexuality, they will gain attention for many and varied reasons. The fact they do so repeatedly does not make those giving them attention guilty by default.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"
Posts: 20,141
Threads: 165
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
(12-10-2018, 01:52 AM)LP link Wrote:Not really a guarantee of anything is it.
Hitler sang in the church choir and contemplated becoming a priest in his youth, as an adolescent it's documented he had a strong desired to become an artist!
A very strange and frankly nonsensical comparison. Contemplating this or that and having a desire to be this or that is irrelevant. Sheldrake has the training, the working experience and all the chops to be as scientific a scientist as Dawkins. Hitler had a few dreams and sang a few hymns.
https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake
Posts: 29,292
Threads: 289
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
12-10-2018, 02:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2018, 02:30 AM by LP.)
(12-10-2018, 02:04 AM)PaulP link Wrote:A very strange and frankly nonsensical comparison. Contemplating this or that and having a desire to be this or that is irrelevant. Sheldrake has the training, the working experience and all the chops to be as scientific a scientist as Dawkins. Hitler had a few dreams and sang a few hymns.
https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake
Not really, trained scientists are not oracles of knowledge, they are generally very specifically trained in detail in a narrow field of knowledge and should adhere to the scientific method within their field.
The first alarm bell you should raise is when a person identifying as a scientist raises ideas that are not testable while claiming they have scientific significance in the absence of proof or testable hypothesis.
A good example is the misappropriation of scientific credentials used by climate deniers to claim a biologist arguing against climate change proves there is no scientific consensus.
They are all free to have an opinion, but we know about opinions and we certainly know they are not all equal, some are much bigger than others!
But can you clarify one thing from your debate, define "materialistic science" from science, and what are the other sciences?
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"
Posts: 20,141
Threads: 165
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
None of the points you raise apply to Sheldrake. Materialist scientists are scientists who believe in materialism, the most popular of which is Richard Dawkins.
Posts: 29,292
Threads: 289
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
12-10-2018, 02:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2018, 03:08 AM by LP.)
(12-10-2018, 02:31 AM)PaulP link Wrote:None of the points you raise apply to Sheldrake. Materialist scientists are scientists who believe in materialism, the most popular of which is Richard Dawkins.
So categorised by a 3rd party or self-declared, should you premise that claim with a "so called...."?
"Materialist scientists are scientists who believe in materialism" you won't find a more dogmatic definition.
What are the other scientists, or are there only materialistic scientists and "others"? When you give the label, you imply there is another category!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"
|
