Most Americans pray for healing; more than one-fourth have practiced 'laying on of hands'

Nearly nine of 10 Americans have relied upon healing prayer at some point in their lives, praying for others even more than for themselves, according to a study by a Baylor University epidemiologist.

"The most surprising finding is that more than a quarter of all Americans have practiced laying on of hands—and nearly one in five has done so on multiple occasions," said Jeff Levin, Ph.D., M.P.H., University Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health and director of the Program on Religion and Population Health at Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion.

"Outside of belief in God, there may be no more ubiquitous religious expression in the U.S. than use of healing prayer," Levin said.

The findings also suggest that prayer may be among them most widely used forms of treatment for medical problems, rather than a "fringe activity" as many people might believe, he said.

The study is published in the Journal of Religion and Health. Findings are based on analyses of data from the third round of the Baylor Religion Survey, a nationally representative population survey conducted in partnership with the Gallup Organization in 2010.

More than three-fourths of Americans have prayed for their own healing, and nearly a third do so often, Levin said. Nearly 90 percent have prayed for the healing of others, and more than half report doing so often. More than half of Americans have asked for healing prayer and have taken part in prayer groups.

"Interestingly, most people who use prayer for healing do so alongside regular medical care, rather than as a substitution, as has been presumed up to now," Levin said. "Healing prayer is being used more as a complementary treatment rather than as an alternative one."

The practice of laying on of hands is found in the Bible and has long been used by Christians and Jews as a means to ordain clergy and to bless people, but also to transmit physical healing, Levin said.

"For many of us, the image that might come to mind is the faith healer. But these findings show that the practice is much more widespread, as is healing prayer in general," he said.

Statistical analysis of the survey of 1,714 U.S. adults showed that:

  • 78.8 percent of participants have prayed for healing for themselves at some point in their lives, and 32.4 percent do so often
  • 87.4 percent have prayed for healing for others, and 51.1 percent do so often
  • 54.1 percent have asked for prayers for their health
  • 26.1 percent have given a "laying on of hands" for healing
  • 53 percent have participated in a prayer group, prayer circle or prayer chain

While certain factors, such as frequent religious attendance, reading Scripture or meditation, were predictive of at least one form of healing prayer, the one most consistent predictor was a loving relationship with God, the study found.

"People who feel a close connection to God, who love God and feel loved by God, are the very people most likely to pray for healing: for themselves or others, alone or in a group, and verbally or through laying on of hands," Levin said.

"These people are taking to heart the biblical call to 'love your neighbor as yourself,' something found in both the Old and New Testaments."

Whether the prayers work is beyond the scope of his research, Levin said.

"So much has been written in the medical literature in the past several years about the possibility that prayer heals," he said. "There have even been a series of controversial and inconclusive clinical trials.

"But with so much attention paid to the efficacy of prayer—something science may not ever be capable of proving one way or another to everyone's satisfaction—almost no attention has been given to simply documenting the practice. How many people pray for healing? How often? Who are these folks? That's why this study was done."

The next step will be to investigate whether there are differences in rates of healing across religions and denominations, Levin said.

But "preliminary analysis suggests that the practice is widespread, regardless of one's religious background or beliefs."


Explore further

Power of prayer to help heal studied

Provided by Baylor University
Citation: Most Americans pray for healing; more than one-fourth have practiced 'laying on of hands' (2016, April 18) retrieved 20 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-americans-one-fourth.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
18 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 18, 2016
It's kind of funny but a lot of comments about these articles are from atheists but I have found by experience how quick the worm turns. :-) There is a saying that goes "There are no atheists in foxholes". After a year in the jungles of Vietnam, I can tell you that saying has more that a grain of truth in it. I saw grown men who claimed they were atheists in the morning, praying fervently just before a attack that night.

Apr 18, 2016
There is a saying that goes "There are no atheists in foxholes".
I've only ever heard x-ians say that, however...

Either way... oblivion is one scary bitch

Apr 18, 2016
Nearly nine of 10 Americans have relied upon healing prayer

Really? "relied" upon ...I mean: instead of going to a doctor? Or are we merely talking "practiced healing prayer".

Even if it's the latter: that is one insane statistic. The health system in the US must be worse than I thought.

RMQ
Apr 18, 2016
This has been known for ages. Carl Jung said it like 100 years ago, that people were atheists until suffering arrived... And I had seen it like that. The most outspoken atheists are the ones who do not love anybody, so suffering is less likely, and obviously, the professional atheists have no problem with lying saying that they love some, that is according to their own definition of love.

Apr 18, 2016
The most outspoken atheists are the ones who do not love anybody, so suffering is less likely, and obviously, the professional atheists have no problem with lying saying that they love some, that is according to their own definition of love.
Unless you're an athiest speaking for yourself, about yourself, then everything you just said is bullshit.

Apr 18, 2016
The most outspoken atheists are the ones who do not love anybody,

I think you misunderstand atheism. It is a state of mind where you don't need others to tell you to act good (which includes loving others).

Only people who can't really come to grips with this need books (and the threats immanent in these books) to teach them how to be decent human beings. And what does that say about the ground state of such people?

according to their own definition of love

And I amn certain you know the difference between love-by-threat (the religious kind) and love by just...love (the atheist kind), right?
If I have to choose then it's pretty clear which is superior, neh?

Apr 18, 2016
antalias_physorg is lying as surely as surely as when they never contradicted the atheists who insisted that all the wars in history were caused by religion.
Atheism says only that God is not present. Atheists make no assertions about love. In fact, atheists love no one. The rule for atheists is to behave ethically to keep the population whole so they'll be personally safe from danger. If they had a button that would kill everyone else but give them all they wanted, they would have no compunctions about pressing it. Those who accept the presence of God accept higher principles, such as the value of all lives, even if they don't protect you personally. Atheists laugh at their opponents suffering failure or defeat. Those who accept the presence of God wouldn't.

Apr 18, 2016
Another characteristic lie, that love for others in religion comes from fear of God. Those who accept the presence of God do not fear Him. They do watch that their own actions are not so malignant and foul that they will reap repercussions, but do the atheists have the same hatred for the "law" as they do for God? The "law" works by the same rule. But atheists will describe the law" as a societal development to maintain order and allow man to flourish. Will they say the same for God/ Not liars like them. And God does not demand that He be loved, those who accept the presence of God, on the higher level than the atheists and so able to perceive what they won't feel love naturally. Atheists are, to a one, arrested development degenerates, failures, freaks and misfits, beating up their mothers for money to buy drugs and incapable of a normal, healthy relationship with anyone.

Apr 18, 2016
Most Americans pray to win the lottery. What's the point?

Euros have the wrong opinion about American religionists. Our culture is designed to attract immigrants from all over the world, most of whom are deeply religious.

Of course we would be conveying the image that we are religious as well. This is called PR.

Once they get here and settle in their respective little Italys and Chinatowns, their children comingle and their convictions fade.
It's kind of funny but a lot of comments about these articles are from atheists but I have found by experience how quick the worm turns... "There are no atheists in foxholes
It's kind of funny how only you religionists say things like this.

Lots of you guys go to war and come back atheists. Hard to believe that a loving, caring god would allow all that horror just to test our faith you know? Especially when god is on both sides?

I was going to end the post there but it was 88 characters and I'm kind of superstitious.

Apr 18, 2016
Unsurprising that it should be indicated that following up to see if prayer was rewarded was not included in the "study". The fact is, the atheists and even those who follow religions, remembering that religion is not equivalent to accepting the presence of God, are not eager to make the success rate of prayer overall obvious. Atheists know there are patterns and they don't want that known. Religionists tailor their message as that everyone is rewarded. In fact, that's not true. You will be rewarded by God, but if you deserve it! The point religionists don't mention, because they don't want their followers all becoming such superior beings. They want them insipid and unaccomplished. But, if you act in a way that is truly high and noble and working with God's wishes, you will be rewarded. If someone is prayed for, though, and they don't deserve God's benefits, they will not be rewarded.

Apr 18, 2016
Atheism says...
Where? do they have like rules? a manifesto? a secret handshake?
If I don't laugh at my opponents suffering failure or defeat, am I in danger of becoming a theist?


Apr 18, 2016
TheGhostofOtto1923 trundles another misrepresentation by atheist liars. God, as such, does not "allow" war. God made humans so they would act by their own initiative. He didn't want puppets. It is by their initiative that humans have caused misery. Not once were people taken from where they were and suddenly transported to a battlefield, fully armed and already shooting at others. Not once did someone suddenly find themselves taken from where they were and placed in an alley stabbing someone. People are the cause of these things.

Apr 18, 2016
God haters, atheists, don't care how malignantly they behave. Guy_Underbridge pretends it is unreasonable to refer to atheism having a tenet. It depicts itself as a system with precepts. Their primary precept is that God is not present. antalias_physorg also provides a purported definition of atheism, but doe Guy_Underbridge take antalias_physorg to task? The atheists are all vicious and all liars.

Apr 18, 2016
Atheism says only that God is not present. Atheists make no assertions about love. In fact, atheists love no one
This sort of disgusting bigotry is why religion is doomed. The only reason you don't discuss this in public is because you've been forced to by centuries of secular pressure.

And of course you believe it's the right way to think because it SAYS SO in your books. Over and over again.

And you would resume burning scientists and other heretics if you ever regained the power you want.

Only a few million muslims support sharia and jihad, but most of the rest frankly believe that the fall of western civilization wouldn't be a bad thing.

And as your books are identical in all matters that count, you all want the same.

Luckily, modern society allows the objective exploration of religion. We compare what you all believe and we can see that they are all the same thing.

And science has conclusively shown that the stories in your books never happened.

Apr 18, 2016
atheists don't care how malignantly they behave
Malignant? Atheism isn't based on a system designed to outgrow and overrun it's counterparts. The religions that have survived to the present have done so because they force their women to reproduce until it kills them.

And the reason you don't see this today, in this particular part of the world, is because you have been FORCED to give it up.

But whenever you've been allowed free reign that's exactly how you revert.

Again because your books all demand it.

The tribal dynamic - internal altruism coupled with external animosity - comes naturally to humans. But it is anathema to modern society.

Religions have all exploited this dynamic, which is why they are truly 'malignant'. And to do so they promise hapless weak-willed people like yourself anything it will take, up to and including immortality, to get you to act in as beastly a manner as is required for them to succeed.

What's not to hate about all this?

Apr 18, 2016
See how easy it is to shut people like Julian up? Just present the truth. Godders hate that.

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." -Martin Luther

What's not to hate about a credo that teaches people not to think?

Apr 18, 2016
Nearly nine of 10 Americans have relied upon healing prayer

Really? "relied" upon ...I mean: instead of going to a doctor? Or are we merely talking "practiced healing prayer".

Even if it's the latter: that is one insane statistic. The health system in the US must be worse than I thought.


The survey merely happened to be conducted in America, which does not mean that the results are unique to America. In fact, America has the best medical tech and knowledge base in the world.


Apr 18, 2016
"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." -Martin Luther

What's not to hate about a credo that teaches people not to think?


and another,....

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." -Martin Luther

The history of religion is the history of controlling the masses,.... IMO, it is no different than the political gibberish exposed by socialist people Bernie Sanders, or any other type of 'collectivism',... communism, etc.


Apr 18, 2016
..... where the "god" part is played by the government, to which the masses are asked to have "faith", and which must trample underfoot all individualism, liberty, and freedom. The "reason" part is played by one's natural instincts of egoism,... which is the cause of individualism, liberty, and freedom.


Apr 18, 2016
If I ever get another computer again I may just give you a 5/5 or perhaps a 4/5 for that Luther quote.

Say - do you think that the word 'must' is a conflating of the words 'may' and 'just'?

I know you guys like to fiddle with things like that.

Apr 18, 2016
Say - do you think that the word 'must' is a conflating of the words 'may' and 'just'?

I know you guys like to fiddle with things like that.


It may just be the case, but not necessarily must be the case. I suppose it's an amusing subject,.... 'avocado' is derivative of the aztec word for testicle. Do you eat avocado's? I don't.

But I don't know anything about etymology nor would I reject an entire field of study without my self having studied it sufficiently to do so,..... like "you guys" tend to do.

Say, did "you guys" know that Antiphilosophy is a form of metaphilosophy. This should tie up your evening.

.....................................

EDIT:" [espoused] by socialist people [like] Bernie Sanders...."

Apr 18, 2016
It's kind of funny but a lot of comments about these articles are from atheists but I have found by experience how quick the worm turns. :-) There is a saying that goes "There are no atheists in foxholes". After a year in the jungles of Vietnam, I can tell you that saying has more that a grain of truth in it. I saw grown men who claimed they were atheists in the morning, praying fervently just before a attack that night.


Vietnam is where I became an atheist and lost my fear of death.

Apr 18, 2016
"Never ask god to load your rifle." -my dad

Apr 18, 2016
Vietnam is where I became an atheist and lost my fear of death
bravo.

"5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the Lord and shun evil.
8 This will bring health to your body
and nourishment to your bones." Proverbs 3

-I once got into a debate with a xian scientist about faith healing and a case about a couple who were arrested after their son died from lack of treatment.

'Well sometimes it doesn't work" he said.

I think it's very peaceful knowing how things really work.

Apr 18, 2016
'avocado' is derivative of the aztec word for testicle. Do you eat avocado's? I don't
"And who would want THAT texture in their mouth?" -Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon)

-I would have to say that about the entire discipline of philosophy.

BTW I think it's very peaceful knowing how things really work, even if they don't work very well. Like chemo.

Apr 18, 2016
@Nou

I see you don't like my comment about losing my fear of death on becoming an atheist.
It's more true now than ever. Just this morning my oncologist reaffirmed that without chemo
I'm looking at 4-5 months to live. If chemo was successful I might have 12-18 months. The trade off isn't worth it. Fortunately I have I an excellent non-profit Medicare Advantage plan with fully paid in home hospice care.

I'm grateful all my family and friends support my decision, I'm at peace with it.

Apr 18, 2016
all the wars in history were caused by religion

I would say that all the wars are caused by greed - not religion. The people at the top of religious *organizations* are as prone to be corrupt as the people at the top of any other organization
Or do you really believe one becomes a pope or a imam just by being most devout? These are politicians just like other politicians?

Religious *organizations* are just very prone to abuse because they collect people who can't think for themselves.(i.e. those who need a book and threats to tell them how to be a decent human being...instead of just being a decent human being from the get-go)

But there are other forms of organization that are as good at collecting dupes as religions. Any time you hear someone talk about "pride" or "honor" or "patriotism" then you can be 100% sure you've found such a one.

Apr 18, 2016
@Nou

I see you don't like my comment about losing my fear of death on becoming an atheist.
It's more true now than ever. Just this morning my oncologist reaffirmed that without chemo
I'm looking at 4-5 months to live. If chemo was successful I might have 12-18 months. The trade off isn't worth it. Fortunately I have I an excellent non-profit Medicare Advantage plan with fully paid in home hospice care.

I'm grateful all my family and friends support my decision, I'm at peace with it.


Please restate this in the last 10 minutes of your life and perhaps I will believe you about not praying.. :-)

Apr 18, 2016
The greatest human catastrophes of mass death had nothing to do with religion nor greed, ...but in fact by forces that were anti-religion and anti-greed. By far leftist central planning governments,... communism, forced collectivism, and government social engineering.


Apr 18, 2016
@Nou

I see you don't like my comment about losing my fear of death on becoming an atheist.


No, I liked it fine. You perplex me with your 1-ratings, so I thought I would return the favour.

Just this morning my oncologist reaffirmed that without chemo
I'm looking at 4-5 months to live. If chemo was successful I might have 12-18 months. The trade off isn't worth it.


I'm sorry that this is happening. We will all die eventually, of something,... some much earlier than others. I'm sure you are content with the time that you do have yet and have had. Have you tried the chemo to know? Best wishes.


Apr 18, 2016
@Noumenon
The Belgian king Leopold II mass murdered the Congolese out of greed. Julius Casar slaughtered 1/3 of Gaule out of greed. Timor Leste was decimated for greed and religion.
The European Jews were murdered for their religion for centuries.
Don't fool yourself, Noumenon.


Reread and Notice that I did not say that "greed" and "religion" were NEVER factors in mass deaths,... but rather pointed out that "The greatest human catastrophes of mass death had nothing to do with religion nor greed", but in fact by forces that were anti-religion and anti-greed in ideology.

Also, see my post above effectively equating religion and political ideology of collectivism.


Apr 18, 2016
The examples I give are among "The greatest human catastrophes of mass death" and had everything to do with religion and greed.


Yes, you gave examples that were on that list. I choose to refer to the top of that list, by using the word "greatest",... to substantiate the point that religion and greed were not necessary factors.

Distort history all you like, but you don't fool me.


Where did I distort history?


Apr 18, 2016
. . . please restate this in the last 10 minutes of your life . . . :-)


So this is what religion makes of a person- no wonder atheism is becoming more popular. This is one of the most despicable things I've ever seen posted and the very epitome of religious perversion. What a horrid and heartless thing to say to someone in their last days! Only a shit-crawling narcissist would feel the need to gloat this way. Spending an eternity with people like you would truly be hell. I honestly feel sick reading your foul screed.

Apr 18, 2016
Wow. How did I miss this one?
Anyway...
If it was reported correctly, Steve Jobs last words were " Oh, wow. Oh. wow.
(Not - Oh, god, Oh god...)
I think he lived, loved and passed pretty well.

VV,
In case I don't get another chance - See you at the wall, brother...:-)

Apr 19, 2016
I think you misunderstand atheism. It is a state of mind where you don't need others to tell you to act good (which includes loving others).


I think you misunderstand atheism. In a state of things where there is no god, good isn't even defined before you ask others what it means. How can anyone tell good from bad to act it, if they can't know what it is? How does anyone do good if not relative to someone else?

In other words, since you can't objectively define good, it's always a matter of opinion. The point of theism then is to project that opinion onto something that nobody can question to reject it, and the point of Atheism must then be the opposite.

That's what makes atheism more compassionate: it actually asks people what they think is right, rather than claiming to know what is right and forcing it on everyone. At least that should be the point - your results may vary.

Apr 19, 2016
i
. . . please restate this in the last 10 minutes of your life . . . :-)


So this is what religion makes of a person- no wonder atheism is becoming more popular. This is one of the most despicable things I've ever seen posted and the very epitome of religious perversion. What a horrid and heartless thing to say to someone in their last days! Only a shit-crawling narcissist would feel the need to gloat this way. Spending an eternity with people like you would truly be hell. I honestly feel sick reading your foul screed.


And just what do you think is so bad about that statement? I sooner or later will only have 10 minutes left and so will you. Come to think of us we all will. :-) Sorry, I did not know that was a taboo subject.
I can't believe you said that to me when I will be dead in 24 hrs. :-(

Apr 19, 2016
The problem of theism though is, that you can always step up to God and ask "Why are you always right?" - "Why do we have to follow your command?", etc.

And you can come back with two possible answers. First is "No reason." - which means God has no justification. The whole thing is plain and simple tyranny, and God can't actually fault us for thinking otherwise - although he can still bully us to agree.

The second possibility is some variation of saying that God is by definition Good, which boils down to saying that God is right because God is right - which is a tautology and doesn't answer the question.

There's also the argument that God knows what's best for everyone and is simply giving good advice, or making sure everything goes along the best possible way, but that too falls back down to "best according to whom?", which has an answer "Best according to God", which again returns to the original question.

Apr 19, 2016
The greatest human catastrophes of mass death had nothing to do with religion nor greed
Isn't it interesting how those who want to re-write history - are so educated about the evils of 'communism, forced collectivism, and government social engineering.' But actually know very little about history - but still need to insert their own opinion.


Are you an idiot? Again the point was not to reference every single tragic event in human history, but to reference the "greatest" on that list. This was in response to a few posts above suggesting atheists think ALL wars are caused by religion and to another suggesting ALL wars are caused by greed. I only needed to reference the top on the list to refute this.

Now, just because I didn't list EVERY SINGLE event of mass death in my post (which is limited to 1,000 characters, and would have been irrelevant to the point), this means to your simple and corrupt mind that I know little history?


Apr 19, 2016
Everyone gets 100% lifetime.

Why waste that time with delusions of sky fairies?
Never seen the point in that. The world (and the universe much more so) is nifty enough without them.

To quote Tim Michin from the beat poem "Storm":

"To gild refined gold,
to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet
is just f*king silly''


Apr 19, 2016
Here is the post to which I was responding.....

all the wars in history were caused by religion


I would say that all the wars are caused by greed - not religion


To refute that "ALL" mass deaths were caused by "religion" or "greed", it was only necessary to reference a few examples, which were at the top of that list in my link , thus greatest,... and happened to be orders of magnitude more deaths than most wars.

The point of communism was to solve "greed", and they were generally anti-religion.


Apr 19, 2016
Everyone gets 100% lifetime.
Why waste that time with delusions of sky fairies?
Never seen the point in that. The world (and the universe much more so) is nifty enough without them.

Excellent summation!
To quote Tim Michin from the beat poem "Storm":

"To gild refined gold,
to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet
is just f*king silly''

AA waxing poetic. I like it...;-)
The concept of a god or gods is simple anthropomorphism of seemingly random events and/or conditions.
It's a tool for our conscience to rationally relate to those events or conditions.
Not always a GOOD tool if wielded like a hammer...

Apr 19, 2016
Between 5 and 10 million deaths in Congo in the late 19th century figures on top of my list.
If you claim that the second world war had nothing to do with greed, think again.
It was not motivated by religion, but it was motivated by greed.


It wasn't necessary for me to enumerate EVERY SINGLE mass death event in history to substantiate the point I wanted to make, nor could I given limited space.

I never even mentioned WWII, so how are you deducing that I think it had nothing to do with greed? Do I have to enumerate all major historical events of mass death just to prevent that baseless accusation?


Apr 19, 2016
"There have even been a series of controversial and inconclusive clinical trials."

The Templeton funded [!] trial was rather conclusive as far as I know: stay away from intercessory prayer as it lowers likelihood of getting well. (Likely because of psychological effects.)

So, this is clearly madness, even if you didn't consider the magical thinking involved.

Apr 19, 2016
AA waxing poetic. I like it...;-)

You can find the full poem (with excellent delivery) on youtube
https://www.youtu...7Jbc_Vhw
Very funny and oddly profound at times.

Apr 19, 2016
Vietvet, have you red the WebMD article of lung tumors reducing with CBD's?

Apr 19, 2016
What a shit storm this thread started with! Let me, a skeptic so not a philosophical atheist by any means, clarify some erroneous claims:

- ""There are no atheists in foxholes"".
There are no chaplains in foxholes. But as it happens, there is now organizations to refute the slanderous aphorism. [ Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers ]

- "[atheists] own definition of love".
Said by religious, that defines 'love' by their own terms! But it has been shown that all people has the same moral and emotional reactions without having to define, say, "love".

- "they never contradicted the atheists who insisted that all the wars in history were caused by religion."
If someone claimed that, they were wrong, What we can definitely say based on history is that *all religions* (except possibly jainism) has caused wars at one time or other. Meanwhile "atheism" (only explicitly a policy of Albania) never has. How do you go to war in the name of nothing?

[tbctd]

Apr 19, 2016
- "God haters".
This is the most stupid claim of all. It shows that brainwashed religious people can't wrap their heads around the hypothesis that their magic agency *does not exist*.

You can't hate what isn't. "Atheism" is a non-belief of love against all beliefs, compared to religions who hate - contradict, repress - all other magic agencies besides their own.

- "Antiphilosophy is a form of metaphilosophy."

You are assuming philosophy isn't meaningless *and* you are assuming it should lay means of knowledge (science) under itself. Those are arguable points. (Personally, I reject both. It should be called "sillosophy"!)

Apr 19, 2016
I would like to know why I got two "one" ratings for my suggestion to Vietvet. It is pure hate, with no rationality?

He has lung cancer. WEBMD had an article on it. If you think this is wrong, then have the guts to discuss it.

Apr 19, 2016
The point of communism was to solve "greed", and they were generally anti-religion.


Actually it wasn't. The point of Marxism was the observation that as the laborers become more and more productive due to advancing technology and technique and supply of resources, there's less and less justification for the private ownership of the means of production and the products, and therefore it would naturally occur that the society would re-structure itself into communism. Marx saw the revolution as a historical necessity, rather than something you had to specifically bring about.

When the revolution failed to happen of itself, the communists set about to make it happen, in their greed to hasten the arrival of the post-scarcity society described by communism.

When that failed, the communists switched argument from producing a cornucopia to playing a zero-sum game and re-branded themselves as dispensers of social justice fighting against greed to produce the better man.

Apr 19, 2016
None of my friends with whom I was a patient at Travis AFB turned to religion before they died. I think most folk understand it is all wishful thinking.

Apr 19, 2016
You claimed that
The greatest human catastrophes of mass death had nothing to do with religion nor greed
And then of course went on to blather about
forced collectivism, and government social engineering
Once again in an effort to dismiss the role of religion,.


Your response here demonstrates that either you have not read my above posts, or are incapable of following logic, or are fundamentally intellectually corrupt, or all the above.

"The greatest human catastrophes of mass death" that I REFERENCED had nothing to do with religion nor greed, but anti-religion and anti-greed. This is a fact.

The point was only to refute the notion that "ALL" events of mass death were the result of religion or greed,... NOT to dismiss that religion and greed were ever factors in other events.

Again, your absurd INSISTENCE of your own interpretation of my post, even in the face of clear counter evidence, is incredibly corrupt. You're on Ignore.


Apr 19, 2016
I would like to know why I got two "one" ratings for my suggestion to Vietvet.


Glad to oblige you Skippy.

Because,,,
1) It was condescending in your thinking he might not have done a whole lot more reading on this than you have given the circumstances.
2) Given your recent snarks directed to him, it was probably insincere and not more than a way for you to seem like you are the altruistic good guy.
3) It was off topic and uninvited.
4) If you had done any reading on your "suggestion" you would have known that the WebMD report was just a maybe sorta possible could-be unstudied thing.

It is pure hate, with no rationality?
Non Cher, I do not hate you, I think you are amusing and funny. But between you and me, Skippy you might not want to open the floor to discussing your rationality, non.

If you think this is wrong, then have the guts to discuss it.
When I have I not done that? You usually end up telling me to go away when I do.

Apr 19, 2016
Hate? You are not real, Toots. You are just another imaginary name and text in the internet.

Some of us are real, but you are too SCARED to be. I think it is because you are embarrassed to be you.

Apr 19, 2016
He has lung cancer. WEBMD had an article on it. If you think this is wrong, then have the guts to discuss it.


WebMD is not exactly a scientific publication - it's pushing its sponsors' agenda which usually involves selling some kind of drug or treatment, and you're using it to suggest cannabis on a cancer patient, who would be best served by proven and tried treatment.

It's not a surprise that people would take offense on that, just as against any other fringe stuff.

Hate? You are not real, Toots. You are just another imaginary name and text in the internet.


Shooting the messenger again there...

Apr 19, 2016
I would say that all the wars are caused by greed - not religion
Of course you would. Eurodisneyites sit within the alabaster walls of their shining city on the hill and look out upon the multitudes with contempt.

Only now Angela has thrown open the gates.
cannabis on a cancer patient, who would be best served by proven and tried treatment
?? Medical marijuana is legal in 28 states. Wherever you been?

Ah right - europe.
You are assuming philosophy isn't meaningless *and* you are assuming it should lay means of knowledge (science) under itself. Those are arguable points. (Personally, I reject both. It should be called "sillosophy"!
Ha that's pretty good.

Apr 19, 2016
- "Antiphilosophy is a form of metaphilosophy."


You are assuming philosophy isn't meaningless *and* you are assuming it should lay means of knowledge (science) under itself. Those are arguable points.


I'm not making assumptions. YOU are making assumptions in impugning an entire branch of knowledge.

It is not an arguable point, as epistemology, a branch of philosophy, quite literally is about the validity of knowledge,.... relevant to physics for example wrt "realism" vs "positivism" approaches, and especially to interpretations of quantum mechanics, which are strictly speaking Philosophy of Physics, ...precisely because interpretations of QM are not theories as they rely on the same experimental evidence.

For the most part my interest in philosophy is limited to that by physicists.

Apr 19, 2016
I'm not making assumptions. YOU are making assumptions in impugning an entire branch of knowledge
Religion is an entire branch of knowledge also. It's based on a lie.

Formal philosophy in all its iterations was designed to replace it until something useful came along ie TV.

Apr 19, 2016
" you're using it to suggest cannabis on a cancer patient, who would be best served by proven and tried treatment."
----------------------------------

Which is failing.

There is evidence it works in some cases. Who are you to say what he should or not try when your "tried and proven" methods fail him?

Go back to your reference books.


Apr 19, 2016
I would like to know why I got two "one" ratings for my suggestion to Vietvet. It is pure hate, with no rationality?

He has lung cancer. WEBMD had an article on it. If you think this is wrong, then have the guts to discuss it
Expressions of sympathy from a psychopath must be viewed with suspicion and contempt.

As with most everything they say.

"Manipulation is the key to the psychopath's conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy, and many of them study the tricks that can be employed by the empathy technique.

"Oh, indeed, they can imitate feelings, but the only real feelings they seem to have - the thing that drives them and causes them to act out different dramas for effect - is a sort of "predatorial hunger" for what they want."

-Psychopaths will exploit anything, even the misfortunes of others, to turn attention back onto them where they feel it rightfully belongs.

Apr 19, 2016
It is not an arguable point, as epistemology, a branch of philosophy, quite literally is about the validity of knowledge
Actually its about the nature of knowledge. And there is quite literally no nature of knowledge.

More smoke and mirrors.

Apr 19, 2016
Hey nou why don't you go spin your wheels in this thread
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

-It's about consciousness in insects. I'm sure you've got a lot to say about THAT.

Apr 19, 2016
I'm not making assumptions. YOU are making assumptions in impugning an entire branch of knowledge
Religion is an entire branch of knowledge also. It's based on a lie.

Formal philosophy in all its iterations was designed to replace it until something useful came along ie TV.


I don't care for religion. Your retort is what is meaningless.

Have your read and understood Kant's 'A critique of Pure Reason' yet, like I asked you to years ago? No? But yet you still want to make sweeping generalities about a entire subject?

I can reference many prominent physicists that disagree with your sweeping generalities and further that write on and acknowledge, philosophy of physics.


Apr 19, 2016
It is not an arguable point, as epistemology, a branch of philosophy, quite literally is about the validity of knowledge
Actually its about the nature of knowledge. And there is quite literally no nature of knowledge.


Is that what wiki told you? HERE is another source to help you.

It's primarily about the validity of knowledge,... its limits, the conditions for, the possible sources, etc.

Apr 19, 2016
I would say that all the wars are caused by greed - not religion
@AA_P
it is the greedy and socoipathic who seek aggrandizement and power who gravitate towards religious leadership positions, therefore it is multi-faceted, at least, in the modern age of history

.
.

Where did I distort history?
@Nou
are you counting singular acts or acts over time?
overall, how many people died during the religious wars, be they crusades, jihad or inquisitions?
witch burning? ostracizing? shunning? the Colosseum?
.

.

I would like to know why I got two "one" ratings
@Couyon-kam-liar
three
- see Ira's post for details, Couyon
There is evidence it works in some cases
some =/= all, nor are you versed in Vietvet's specific diagnosis
therefore diagnosing without evidence may also KILL him

.

.

HEY OTTO... a present you'll like
http://thescience...g-powers

Apr 19, 2016
But I don't know anything about etymology
@Nou...
this is confusing because your entire branch of philosophy requires the ability to manipulate words and meanings for the sake of a thought process that (in your words) is "logical"...
though i also answered what i felt about said "logic" here: http://phys.org/n...ive.html

so, as being a philo actually revolves around syntax and words, and definitely not around evidence, then why would you NOT study etymology, as it is vital in so many ways to the meanings of words and how you can portray them in logical thought????


Apr 19, 2016
@Nou
are you counting singular acts or acts over time?
overall, how many people died during the religious wars, be they crusades, jihad or inquisitions?
witch burning? ostracizing? shunning? the Colosseum?


Why should I respond to someone who clearly has not read my posts? Your questions could be answered simply by reading the above. Your singular constancy of requiring evidence ad nausea does not excuse you from seeking evidence yourself.

My original point only required me to reference one or a few cases of mass death, and I did this by referencing the top two in the list that I linked to.

Had you actually read the above posts, you would not have found any claim by me that religion and greed were never factors in events of mass death. My point was to refute that they were factors in "ALL" events of mass death.


Apr 19, 2016
It's kind of funny but a lot of comments about these articles are from atheists but I have found by experience how quick the worm turns. :-) There is a saying that goes "There are no atheists in foxholes". After a year in the jungles of Vietnam, I can tell you that saying has more that a grain of truth in it. I saw grown men who claimed they were atheists in the morning, praying fervently just before a attack that night.


I guess I need to point out a few things about what I said.
1st I did NOT state I saw everyone praying.
2nd The time span i mention for the change was a few Hours or Minutes NOT days or months.
3rd The death that was contemplated was a vary violent death, while physically struggling to stay alive. (no mention of pain) (no mention of a sure thing)
4th And last I nowhere said what they believed the next day.

Apr 19, 2016
But I don't know anything about etymology


@Nou...
this is confusing because your entire branch of philosophy requires the ability to manipulate words and meanings for the sake of a thought process that (in your words) is "logical"...


More evidence that you are not in a position to make sweeping generalities about philosophy,... but you earned a 5 for that post. Is that your point then, to be the tallest midget?

Etymology is about the historical origin of words and how they have changed over time,..i.e. the historical use of and change of language, ...not the logical construction of statements.

Now, lets see if you're as intellectually degenerate as greenonions........

Apr 19, 2016
Etymology... statements
@Nou
and for a job like yours, it is vital to be aware of obscure and potential double entendre to insure that your meaning is clear and concise, per your own statements about "philo" logic

Therefore, it would also be relevant to insure your knowledge of historical use words for multiple reasons, starting with and not limited to the interpretations of historical philo's

so you say you don't study etymology?
that means, by definition, you also don't comprehend historical philo's except in the context of the argument from authority (your professor, etc) and thus, by extrapolation, means you are not knowledgeable in historical philo meaning/logic, which is the foundation of your argument

so how can you argue from logic when you don't have a clue what is being said?

and you say i can't understand philo?
i can prove you don't understand it ... you regurgitate by rote based upon your interpretation of others regurgitated OPINION

Apr 19, 2016
@nou cont'd
and yes, i did read your posts, i just thought you were being evasive and attempting to philo your way out of a hole you dug ...

kinda like your post above about etymology and elsewhere about my point, which you apparently can't fathom because you're seeking a self-delusional special meaning whereas i was being specific and literal...

http://phys.org/n...ive.html


Apr 19, 2016
From Stumpys link

"The results of this study are pretty clear – once you remove non-verbal cues such as body language from the equation, the ability to smoke out narcissists and psychopaths becomes easier," lead author Michael Woodworth, a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia Okanagan"

-Well we could always watch george kamburoffs little wizard gif from his very excellent website for visual input.

But it's not very intimidating.

Apr 19, 2016
and for a job like yours,


You have no knowledge of what my job is. You continue to make things up as you go along.

.............

Etymology is about the history of words, not about the logical construction of statements....

This fact should have ended this line of discussion,... but no, not for someone more interested in arguing ad infinitum than understanding.

I predicted that you would not be honest and mature enough to admit to being wrong, and to continue arguing and devolving discussion into desperate accusatory style of gibberish. Reading your posts is like watching The Jerry-Spring show and it is a waste of my time. It's no wonder that you get along so well with the cranks, your at their level.

You are on Ignore because you are of no better quality of mind than greenonions.

Apr 19, 2016
Etymology blah blah statements
@Nou
1- your "job" is philo and the spread of it, per your posts here

2- are you really saying that philo's don't need to know about the history and uses of a word when studying the historical philo's statements about logic?

3- logic requires knowledge of word meanings, especially when said logic is specifically and entirely dependent upon the word statements to make the meanings clear for communication

did you study logic from the Python movies?
https://www.youtu...MhU_4m-g

You are on Ignore
I see... so... because you can't make your argument due to an epic failure of basic logic, which you claim is how philo works, then i am on ignore so that i don't interrupt your posturing and grandstanding of self-important D-K narcissistic promotion of philo logic????

wow

just

wow
I predicted
but you've proved NOTHING
so you're the immature tantrum thrower here


Apr 19, 2016
ok... i just love this
I predicted that you would not be honest and mature enough to admit to being wrong
so nou makes an epic fail comment and can't actually understand the reasoning that a philo would need to know etymology in order to actually differentiate what is being said about a subject by a historical philo... so he says it's not important and i'm "wrong"

Problem is... that means, by it's very definition, that all of nou's philo arguments are nothing more than regurgitation of previous philo's opinion about what historical philo's said, and it's relevance to today is as meaningful as dog poo

but i'm the one who isn't logical or mature?
LMFAO

more to the point: Science (and history, and...) etc also studies etymology (at least topically) because (wait for it) it's important when discussing historical text and meanings from historical doc's

thought for the day:
how does Nou know what the ancient philo's actually meant when they said anything?

Apr 20, 2016
Have your read and understood Kant's 'A critique of Pure Reason' yet, like I asked you to years ago? No? But yet you still want to make sweeping generalities about a entire subject?
Nobody understands it. It's gibberish. It was most likely written that way on purpose in order to give future gens of philos an unassailable gibberish pile on which to stand.

The people who pretend to understand it can only explain themselves using further gibberish.

It explains nothing. It adds nothing to any discussion unless the discussion is about posturing and pretense, in which case it is a fashion statement, not a source of clarification and enlightenment.

Apr 20, 2016
For example here is someone who probably believes he is explaining it quite coherently:

"Kant in his critical phase sought to 'reverse' the orientation of pre-critical philosophy by showing how the traditional problems of metaphysics can be overcome by supposing that the agreement between reality and the concepts we use to conceive it arises not because our mental concepts have come to passively mirror reality, but because reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable etcetcetc"

-But to anyone who reads it and actually thinks about it for even a little while, it's GIBBERISH.

And claiming that one doesn't understand the explanation because they aren't sufficiently schooled, is posturing of the worst sort.

Apr 20, 2016
This is interesting...

"But Kant's fame ultimately arrived from an unexpected source. In 1786, Karl Leonhard Reinhold published a series of public letters on Kantian philosophy. In these letters, Reinhold framed Kant's philosophy as a response to the central intellectual controversy of the era: the Pantheism Dispute..."

"The controversy gradually escalated into a debate about the values of the Enlightenment and the value of reason. Reinhold maintained in his letters that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason could settle this dispute by defending the authority and bounds of reason. Reinhold's letters were widely read and made Kant the most famous philosopher of his era."

-Which is what I've been saying. Formal philosophy was presented as an alternative to theism. As such it had to maintain the eternal life mantra by replacing heaven with the metaphysical.
Cont>

Apr 20, 2016
Kant wrote a book every bit as mysterious and unfathomable as the bible. Pundits found it easy to assign comparable authority to it because they were members of institutions which were explaining the universe in ways which actually produced results in technology and medicine, realms in which the church proved to be entirely impotent.

Scientists were happy to let philosophy provide the mystical component until they could offer potential solutions to mankind's biggest obstacles; eternal life and unlimited space to live it in.

But as you guys struggle to maintain your little island as the seas slowly rise, science considers you an embarrassment and a hindrance.

Common people can ask questions like "how could kant expound on the structure of the mind when he had no idea what the structure of the brain was", and you guys can't provide an answer that's not obviously gibberish.
Cont>

Apr 20, 2016
Only scientists can investigate things like the structure of the brain, and bankrupt philo concepts like 'mind' and 'consciousness' and 'epistemology' are useless in this endeavor.

And legions of philos misleading successive generations of impressionable young students, teaching them things that they will eventually have to unlearn with considerable effort and time lost, only makes this worse.

Apr 20, 2016
Have your read and understood Kant's 'A critique of Pure Reason' yet, like I asked you to years ago? No? But yet you still want to make sweeping generalities about a entire subject?

Nobody understands it. It's gibberish.


I've read two translations of it, and understand it just fine. Many people have, which is why he is considered the first great epistemologist and influenced all subsequent philosophy. Of course without prerequisites it is very hard to read.

Only profound ignorance could grant one such arrogance as to make such sweeping proclaimations about an entire branch of study much less Kants work,.... this explains Otto, Ira, and the Stumpy show.

You have not read it and must rely on others for your webbot proxy-opinion on his writtings. You and Stumpy, are also ignorant of QM and even that interpretations of QM IS philosophy of physics, which is why its impossible to discuss Kant's ideas as they relate to modern physics with you two dingbats.


Apr 20, 2016
And claiming that one doesn't understand the explanation because they aren't sufficiently schooled, is posturing of the worst sort.


Well no, because you can't just start in the middle of any complex subject. I couldn't, and had to read Lock, Hume, etc before Kant.

For example, anyone who has studied physics would know this. On first hearing that you could derive Einsteins field equations by contracting the Bianchi identities and then showing the Bianchi identities,... it appears gibberish unless you know what a tensor contraction is, how tensors are manipulated, and how covariant derivatives work. You certainly have zero chance before studying these things. Likewise Kant appears impenetrable without a preparatory basis.

......................

PS: I flatly reject Stumpy and Greenonions "characterization" of what I posted above and their insistent "interpretations". My posts don't require someone elses "interpretations" as they are there to be read.


Apr 20, 2016
My posts don't require someone elses "interpretations" as they are there to be read
@Nou
then you know nothing about communication, do you?
start with "ambiguity of words/phrases" here: https://en.wikipe...nication

but read the whole thing

interpretation is what communication is all about, and given your intentional waffling, as noted by everyone and pointed out by myself & torbjorn here: http://phys.org/n...ive.html

to a philo, ambiguity is the key to success because it allows debate, double entendre, and can include multiple meanings (as noted by the above discussion re: Kant, etc)

it's the exact same tactic used by Edgar Cayce, the bible, the oracle of Delphi and any philo who makes the argument from perceived logic

the difference is in name only
Torbjorn is correct: "Philosophy is dying"



Apr 20, 2016
You two dingbats can't even understand plain english much less be qualified to supply a "characterization" or "interpretation" of what another poster said,.... especially given that obviously those readers can decide that for themselves. It is clear what your intentions are here.

You will remain on ignore. I will send my recommendations to phys.org NOT to allow the troll CapatinStumpy to have any moderation control of their site.

Apr 20, 2016
can't even understand plain english
@Nou
this coming from your epic failure and meltdown here?
http://phys.org/n...ive.html

and above?

wow! hypocrisy and trolling philo narcissism D-K all in one post!
thanks for clearing that up for me

and i don't want to MOD the site because i am intolerant of philo-bullsh*t like yours being shoved down peoples throats while you consider it to be relevant to science (it's not)

Being a philo (like religion) is like having a penis... it's nice that you have one and all, and you should be proud, but stop trying to shove it down people's throats

it's especially worse in that you can't comprehend philo
you simply regurgitate what you've been told is the meaning of [insert philo text here] because of argument from authority... and that isn't "interpretation"... it's factual and you even admit as much

epic fail

(i thought i was on ignore... LOL)

Apr 21, 2016
the professional atheists have no problem with lying
Immediate ignore list.
1. "Professional atheists" Please enlighten us, what is a "professional atheist?" Do you think atheists get, you know, like, paid for being atheists? Really? Really?
2. "Atheists have no problem with lying" Obviously you have none, in any case.

Please engage brain before pounding fingers on keyboard.

That is all.

Apr 21, 2016
Vietvet, dream well. Your courage is an example to us all.

Apr 21, 2016
and i don't want to MOD the site because i am intolerant of philo-bullsh*t like yours being shoved down peoples throats while you consider it to be relevant to science


1) you're not competent to mod the site.

2) you have never even engaged me in any actual substantive discussion about anything that could be deemed 'philosophy of physics',.... never anything about QM or GR. You only make sweeping generalities about an entire vast branch of study. You present yourself as Mr. Science method, ..... yet don't actually discuss substance. You troll argue me instead,.... arbitrarily insisting that if I don't study etymology as a subject onto itself, then I don't know another subject. You invent these type of idiotic arguments and produced nothing but "accusations" out of thin air.

Apr 21, 2016
.... and the relevancy of my posts to physics should have been clear given my references to physicists, or at minimum the substance of those posts. But you are not interested in what is actually being stated as it relates to physics in those posts, except as a point of departure,.... to use them as a pivot point to make your inane and sweeping "proclaimations" about an entire field,... such "debates" are asinine because they aren't ABOUT anything. Stop pretending that you have even considered or even understood the substance of my posts on "philosophy of physics", because we have NEVER had such discussions.


Apr 21, 2016
.... and many prominence physicists contribute to and have written on the field of "philosophy of physics" as interpretations of QM , etc are de facto "philosophy of physics".... so you shoving your sweeping anti-philo BS down people throats without even the decency of enumerating specific subject matters, is vacuous nonsense.


Apr 21, 2016
you're not competent to mod the site
@Nou
this coming from the guy who can't even demonstrate a proficiency in the very field (philo) he shoves down people's throats on PO?
LMFAO
- is that meant to be ironic or simple hyperbole
you have never even engaged me in any actual substantive discussion about anything that could be deemed 'philosophy of physics'
1- because it's not science: it's philo
2- philo is subjective
3- science is evidence based
therefore... and this is important:
4- so what's your point?

i will never talk to you about philo unless it's relevant, like above
you're the one trying to include it as somehow "relevant" to science, like here: http://phys.org/n...ive.html

point being - if you can't actually prove yourself competent in your own chosen "field"... why bother?

i mean - you really think etymological studies aren't relevant to translating historical text?
really?

epic, epic fail

Apr 21, 2016
@nou cont'd
many prominence physicists contribute to and have written on the field of "philosophy of physics"
yeah... some have contributed to religion and alchemy as well (Newton) but that doesn't validate either religion or alchemy, does it?

(of course, you missed that whole point here: http://phys.org/n...ive.html )

so lets get something straight about philo vs science

-Philo is subjective, science isn't
-philo is about belief in a train of thought (you call it logic- it's more like religion)
-your entire philo argument is "argument from authority" because you can't substantiate your own claims about any philo, especially without etymology knowledge (LMFAO)
-nothing, i repeat, nothing in philo is the scientific method

the reason you lash out about anti-philo on a science site is simple (and obvious)
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

Apr 22, 2016
Also notice the arrival of Ersheinung in the voting section. Ersheinung

...bit obvious, that. "Erscheinung" is the german for phenomenon...which in many contexts is a synoym for noumenon.

At least he could have had the decency to spell it right.

Apr 23, 2016
...bit obvious, that. "Erscheinung" is the german for phenomenon...which in many contexts is a synoym for noumenon.

At least he could have had the decency to spell it right.


It means the opposite of noumenon. How do you spell it?

My first use of Erscheinung was signed as "Noumenon", and I never hide the fact that it is to counter troll-raters, of which phys.org is infected. There is little difference between that use and the trolling-cabal's abuse of the rating system in uprating each-other and attacking others...

vietvet
uncle-ira
captain-stumpy
Shut Up_
maloderousmiscreant
GoshURStupid

etc,... rating only 1's to me and only 5's to each other (or nearly always) is an abuse of the rating system. The purpose is obvious, to antagonize and obscure the value of ones posts, which should be the judgement of readers or responses only, not in the hands of cowards who hide under their desk.


Apr 23, 2016
I never use Erscheinung to down rate others posts.


Apr 24, 2016
I realize its been awhile since vietvets one comment but I've got to bring it up here since the message other members system doesn't work for me.
Vietvet, I'm very sorry to hear your health has declined so severely. I will miss you and your comments here. If I don't ever get another chance, goodbye my friend.

Apr 24, 2016
Otto and others tell Nou over and over - that philo talk is babble. I agree. When there are logical contradictions - that seems like good information.


The problem is when they [Otto, Stumpy, Vietvet] only say "philo talk is babble or subjective" or troll rate and hide under their desk,.... without EVER actually pointing out WHY the given statement had logical contradictions or was wrong.

Again, your own post above is another example of that fraud,...it is simply piling on more noise,... as it's nothing but more subjective "characterization" of others comments, WITHOUT engaging in actual substantive discussion,... without offering counter point or objection to specific points made. I could teach me dog to do the same.

I routinely reference prominent physicists,... not old-scholastic philosophers.


Apr 24, 2016
just ignore the logical contradiction of someone who claims to be 'superior


I never claimed to be superior. If I posted a logical contradiction, then it should not be difficult for one to post a refutation,... still waiting.

I have engaged in substantive debate - for example about your willingness to ignore the facts of history - and insert opinion instead - into doing things like calling Native Americans "savages".


Yes, you have engaged me in substantive discussion, or at least tried,... which is why your name is not listed,... but you also have engaged in posting your own "characterizations" of my posts instead of sticking to the topic....

i.e. Native Americans WERE historically regarded as savages, thus, in every sense of the term, they were "savages" in such a contextual post. Yet, you would rather ignore this fact of history, and instead insinuate with accusatory subjective characterizations of my posts.


Apr 24, 2016
Otto does engage in substantive debate - until it gets so exasperating he gives up.


He does sometimes and add's good comments sometimes as well, ....but wrt his anti-philo comments, like Stumpy he has never actually debated me about the substance of a comment that I had made.

As you can see in This Thread, he does not even understand a point made by me, nor has he articulated an objection to the substance of a post that I had made. I even provided several links to threads in which he can mine for objections himself....... yet he has not returned because anti-philo was never the point, not a comment that I made.


Apr 24, 2016
Both you, greenonions, and stumpy have repeated that I posted "circular arguments - and contradictions", yet neither have actually discussed the actual topic to demonstrate that.

I am lead to believe then that neither understand the difference between 1) a "subjective characterization" of ones post, ...and 2) a substantively articulated counter point.

EDIT: "...he has not returned because anti-philo was [] the point, not a comment that I made."

Apr 24, 2016
In This Thread, you (greenonions) repeatedly called me a "racist".

THAT is a Subjective Characterization meant as character-assassination, and not a Substantive Counter-Point and contribution to the discussion,.... nor was it factually based given the meaning of "racism".


Apr 24, 2016
"Even apart from the fact that Kant's theory of the "categories" as the source of man's concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man's consciousness, but of any consciousness"

"The entire apparatus of Kant's system, like a hippopotamus engaged in belly-dancing, goes through its gyrations while resting on a single point: that man's knowledge is not valid because his consciousness possesses identity. . . ."

"A "straw man" is an odd metaphor to apply to such an enormous, cumbersome, ponderous construction as Kant's system of epistemology. Nevertheless, a straw man is what it was"

"No, Kant did not destroy reason; he merely did as thorough a job of undercutting as anyone could ever do."

"If you trace the roots of all our current philosophies—such as pragmatism, logical positivism, and all the rest of the neo-mystics who announce happily that you cannot prove that you exist—you will find that they all grew out of Kant"

Apr 24, 2016
anyone who disagrees with me wrt kant is stupid
I assume this extends to all those philos who are much more educated than nou and who think kants works are rubbish.

"You may also find it hard to believe that anyone could advocate the things Kant is advocating. If you doubt it, I suggest that you look up the references given and read the original works. Do not seek to escape the subject by thinking: "Oh, Kant didn't mean it!" He did. . . ."

Kant is the most evil man in mankind's history."

Apr 24, 2016
"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader's critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the Critique of Pure Reason."

Apr 24, 2016
You also have to have a lot of people who pretend to understand it.
I've read two translations of it, and understand it just fine
No, no you dont.

Apr 24, 2016
You also have to have a lot of people who pretend to understand it.
I've read two translations of it, and understand it just fine
No, no you dont.


Prove it. What have I said that is a lack of understanding Kant? Provide a quote and correction.

You're trashing the thread with off-topic opinions of others,.... none of which has anything to do with a post that I have made here.

Again, you're attempting to establish a characterization rather than engaging in substance. If I posted something you object to, then articulate that objection and provide a counter-point.

I can also provide quotes, mainstream analysis, that establish Kant's 'Critique of pure reason' as an intelligible and major work. So what is the point except to avoid actual substance?


Apr 24, 2016
I don't even agree with everything Kant has written, ... so again what have I said that you object to?


Apr 24, 2016
I knew a brilliant math PhD who believed there was nothing to understand about quantum mechanics. He reached this conclusion through the philosophy of Kant and pointed to a bookshelf full of Kant's works and comments thereon that he had studied as a minor subject.
This is what Kant can do to people.


Have you read Kant? What was your friends Kantian argument in detail? I doubt seriously you are even representing His opinion accurately [I doubt for instance that your friend denied the accuracy of predictive knowledge in QM],... much less being in a position to characterize the general validity of Kant's thought.


Apr 24, 2016
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

Here Feynman concurs with your friend, without even having referenced and unlikely to have even read Kant. This is why subjective characterizations are useless,.... and articulated substantive counter-points in context, necessary.


Apr 24, 2016
Here are some more .....

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." - Niels Bohr.

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr.

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." - John Wheeler.

"If [QT] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science." - Albert Einstein.

"I do not like [QM], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it." - Erwin Schrödinger.

"QM makes absolutely no sense." - Roger Penrose.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." B. d'Espagnat

Why are these very prominent physicists saying these things? It has to do with epistemology, ....which is what Kant wrote about.


Apr 24, 2016
Without that specific Kantian argument available it does not appear possible to substantiate the supposed destructive nature of Kant's philosophy,.... "This is what Kant can do to people",.... especially given the quotes that I provided above and the history of QM.


Apr 25, 2016
Prove it
I just did. I provided conclusions of astute and learned philos that your philobible is hogwash. Its ununderstandable. And so according to them you are either self-deluded or deceptive.
What have I said that is a lack of understanding Kant? Provide a quote
I never said you said that.
and correction
No you need to either admit that you have been deluded or that you are trying to delude the people here.

Which is it?

Apr 25, 2016
"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your PROOF UNINTELLIGIBLE. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader's critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the ABSENCE of DEFINITIONS. I offer in EVIDENCE the Critique of Pure Reason."

Apr 25, 2016
-And I have no problem deferring to these experts. They are after all concluding, after exhaustive study of philosophy in general and of the CoPR in particular, what anyone with half a brain can conclude after spending only an hour or 2 leafing through the pages.

Finding meaning in the book is akin to finding coded messages in the sequence of letters in the bible.

Oh and I think I'll be reposting these cogent excerpts every time the subject comes up in the future. Or I'll spend some time and find new ones equally as refreshing.

Apr 25, 2016
BTW that quote was from none other than the chain-smoking, welfare-sucking cannibal Ayn Rand
https://books.goo...;f=false


Apr 25, 2016
Noumenon
I don't even agree with everything Kant has written
So what? Why would anyone think it is important to make this announcement?


Because Otto posted quotes from people who disagree with Kant as if a refutation,..... i.e. because there exists disagreement with Kant does not refute my use of some of his ideas in their respective contexts.

Please follow the thread or do not post. Your continued attempts at "characterization" is off topic.


Apr 25, 2016
Prove it

I just did. I provided conclusions of astute and learned philos that your philobible is hogwash. Its ununderstandable.


In order to prove the notion that Kant's writtings are incomprehensible, you would need to show that that is the prevailing opinion,... that there such a consensus. Even readers who disagree with his philosophy do not think that he is incomprehensibly spouting gibberish. That is a profoundly ignorant stance.


Apr 25, 2016
More than 1/2 are butt dumb stupid.

I had a Catholic priest try to lay hands on me once...inside my pants.

Apr 25, 2016
"the 'central figure of modern philosophy, who set the terms by which all subsequent thinkers have had to grapple.' - Frederick Copleston [who's 9 vol 'history of philosophy' is widely considered the best in English to have been written, and of which I have read, some volumes multiple times]

I could go on and on quoting well known philosophers , but this "debate" is idiotic as much as it is your own invention to obfuscate the fact that you are not able to articulate an objection to a post I made wrt Kant and QM, etc.

The notion that Kant's writings are gibberish is as absurd as your claim that "minds" don't exist.


Apr 25, 2016

I've read two translations of it, and understand it just fine

No, no you dont. _/q]

Prove it. What have I said that is a lack of understanding Kant? Provide a quote and correction.


I never said you said that.


Well, yes you did,.... as if you, who has not read 'A Critique of Pure Reason',.... and so is intellectually limited via proxy to the opinions of others selected on convenience of argument and not self-interest and pursuit of understanding , somehow, by magic I guess, can tell me what I understand or don't understand without any need to quote me with your own correction.

How am I supposed to respond to you without an articulated objection to a specific point made?. Your claims are as sweeping, ridiculous, and counter to consensus, as Stumpy's out of context anti-philo proclaimations.

Like Stumpy, it's clear you will argue 'where you are qualified',... in the vacuousness of sweeping unsubstantiated generalities.

Apr 25, 2016
100% of Americans practice the lying of tongues.

Not a big surprise that their two "real" candidates are as promoting of fraud as it comes, and loath fraud, with Trump and Sanders, respectively. It's all about lying if you're an American. And with gen X, they've exported it!

Apr 25, 2016
My point was that it is hubris to think that others want to know what you do, or do not believe in.


I thought this was a comment section.

It is hubris to think that others want to know what your "interpretation" or "characterization" of my posts are, particularly when they are capable of deriving their own.

Here is what I said....
"I don't even agree with everything Kant has written, ... so again what have I said that you object to?"


I'm trying to ascertain what it is that I posted that Otto objects to. Posting quotes from others that disagree with Kant is meaningless, because I don't even agree with everything he has written,.... i.e. thus Otto needs to be specific about his objection to me.

Do I need to make a hand-puppet video for you?


Apr 25, 2016
In order to prove the notion that Kant's writtings are incomprehensible, you would need to show that that is the prevailing opinion
Huh. I wonder if ayn rand and her randite posse took consensus into consideration before offering their opinions? If so, and they included the greater academic and scientific communities in their assessment, they may have found it.
That is a profoundly ignorant stance
Also I think you need to show consensus before posting your mystical conjuring of Kant and his powers to channel schroedinger.

"The man who . . . closed the door of philosophy to reason, was Immanuel Kant. . . .

"Kant's expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a MYSTIC base—and what it had to be saved from was reason."

-Finally you need to accept the consensus of the posters on this site who disagree with what you post. Stop using your sockpuppet erscheinung to uprate yourself.

Apr 25, 2016
In order to prove the notion that Kant's writtings are incomprehensible, you would need to show that that is the prevailing opinion


Huh. I wonder if ayn rand and her randite posse took consensus into consideration before offering their opinions?


I would expect not, just as I would expect you to argue from substance, rather than from the opinions of others.

You're the one arguing from the 'opinions of others' as if to attempt to establish a prevailing "characterization" of Kant's writings, instead of actually engaging in substance which I repeatedly requested.


Apr 25, 2016
Finally you need to accept the consensus of the posters on this site who disagree with what you post. Stop using your sockpuppet erscheinung to uprate yourself.


Unlike you, I believe most people here would rather have substance in these threads, than Jerry-Springer bickering and "I hate philo" or "where is the evidence", over and over again. In addition, I post far more about physics than you do here, wiki-bot.


Apr 25, 2016
@Phys1
I knew a brilliant math PhD who believed there was nothing to understand about quantum mechanics. He reached this conclusion through the philosophy of Kant and pointed to a bookshelf full of Kant's works and comments thereon that he had studied as a minor subject. This is what Kant can do to people.
Yep. Philosophy is lost; they're all locked into Derridism and dialectics, and have lost sight of anything remotely resembling reality. Deconstruct deconstructionism.

The Sokal Affair proved this definitively. Philosophy and physics have nothing to do with each other; thank goodness, or we'd be deconstructing narratives of finding the Higgs at the LHC instead of talking about it confirming the Standard Model.

Apr 25, 2016
Q: How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Philosophers don't change light bulbs, they develop a narrative in which the light bulb doesn't need to be changed.

Then some other philosophers deconstruct the narrative and they have an argument about it.

Apr 25, 2016
The Sokal Affair proved this definitively.


That was a hoax perpetrated on a 'cultural studies' journal,... and was not a commentary of the state of philosophy in general, but rather the poor state of peer-review of that particular journal.

Philosophy and physics have nothing to do with each other


It's a legitimate field
, .... many prominent physicists have contributed to. This is a fact.

For example, I would say that since there is no experimental way of deciding between several well known interpretations of QM as they all rely on the same empirical evidence, ....these interpretations are to be considered 'philosophy of physics' rather than alternative theories.

One such theory may rely on "realism" while another, "positivism". These are philosophies.

I have many 'philosophy of physics' books written by physicists, sitting on my shelf.


Apr 25, 2016
I'm trying to ascertain what it is that I posted that Otto objects to.


Which would be handled by a simple question - "what specifically do you object to?" Clarity is the essence of good communication.


Were these requests by me above not clear enough,....

How am I supposed to respond to you without an articulated objection to a specific point made?


you are not able to articulate an objection to a post I made wrt Kant and QM


I don't even agree with everything Kant has written, ... so again what have I said that you object to?


Prove it. What have I said that is a lack of understanding Kant? Provide a quote and correction.


If I posted something you object to, then articulate that objection and provide a counter-point.



Apr 25, 2016
it is hubris to think people care about what you believe.


YOU have posted 20 times so far in this thread, nearly every one of which is in response to, or is a commentary of, what Noumenon has posted,.... so I know as a fact that at a minimum, Greenonions cares about what Noumenon believes.

This is a comment section. It's for posting what one believes.

You could just click on the Ignore button, then you could at least belatedly show that YOU don't care about what I believe.


Apr 26, 2016
so I know as a fact that at a minimum, Greenonions cares about what Noumenon believes.
Nope - I don't give a shit what you believe -


And yet every post you have made in this thread is in response to MY comments. Perhaps some cognitive dissonance going on?

You keep putting me (and others) on ignore - and then never do it. What better example of a someone who has some cognitive dissonance going on?


Or it could mean temporarily. The evidence supports this rather than your "characterization" of me personally,.... which seems all that you're interested in.


Apr 26, 2016
I would expect not, just as I would expect you to argue from substance, rather than from the opinions of others
IOW because I'm not throwing your esoterica back at you then I'm only aping without understanding?

IOW using references of experts to support a position is only acceptable when you do it?

I don't think so.

I did my own research into your 'discipline' and got suspicious when I saw the conspicuous lack of 'prevailing' definitions, the myriad conflicting -isms, and the curious lack of progress and relevancy.

And then I found all the detractors inside and outside your 'discipline', most of whom who were obviously far more learned than you (they were aware of both sides of an issue for instance), who were finding the same problems and drawing the same conclusions as I was.
I post far more about physics than you do
Zephyr posts far more than you. And when people like da schneib challenge you
http://phys.org/n...ron.html

-you lose.

Apr 26, 2016
Unlike you, I believe most people here would rather have substance in these threads
And you're presuming that what you post qualifies as substance.

I think it's a good thing to have a token philo here, for the same reasons as religionists and psychopaths - you provide opportunities to demythologize*, and to expose your nature.

-But it begs the question - after years of derision why are you still posting here rather than on a legitimate philo website where you could expect to get constructive feedback from fellow esotericians? Are you here for the same reasons dense-aether, EU cranks, and sun-is-a-neutron-star oddballs?

You know, to pretend you're right because everybody else is inferior?

*demythologize - Frazier Crane, Cheers (for comedic effect)

Apr 26, 2016
And when people like da schneib challenge you -you lose.


You would actually have to know some physics yourself to see the obvious outcome of that debate,... which was that DaSchneib was annihilated resoundingly, as well as in This Thread. You wouldn't know this though.


Apr 26, 2016
…..Actually, DaSchnieb is knowledgeable about physics and is capable of engaging in interesting discussions, if he feels like it,.. as in the link you posted,.... but unfortunately more often than not, he tends to degenerate into dishonesty [at your level] as in This Thread

Apr 27, 2016
counter...raters
@Nou
hypocrite. i don't use a sock... i just try to be valid or able to substantiate my claims
and uprating yourself because someone else doesn't like what you say is no different than the idiot zephir uprating himself because he can't substantiate a claim with evidence, or posts pseudoscience and considers mainstream a conspiracy against him
a sock puppet is, quite literally, the actions and "hands of cowards who hide under their desk"

.

.

@jsdarkdestruction
I will pass that on to him for you, in case he missed it

.

.

Something more exciting to talk about
For those interested in an OT astrophysics link or 2 -especially Schneib, AA_P, JSDark or Nou

Observation of thermal Hawking radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole
https://arxiv.org...0621.pdf

CERN LHC data is open source for everyone
http://opendata.cern.ch/

Apr 27, 2016
@Nou cont'd
The problem is ...without EVER actually pointing out WHY ...
I was going to leave you to argue with otto but i had to reply to this
why is a philo argument "wrong"?

1- all philo is subjective to the individual. it is not scientific, nor does it remove bias, nor is it repeatable, nor can it be validated by the scientific method. every person is different

2- contemplation alone, without observation of nature, is totally useless in coming up with an accurate picture of nature
(IOW - philosophy is mental masturbation. period.)

3- the primary philo argument you've supplied is not factual or logical, but argument from authority ( [insert philo name] said, and he's a/an [insert claim here] ) or misinterpretation

why then do you ignore relevant points listed above or here?
http://phys.org/n...ive.html

subjective+hypocrisy+circular+argument from authority
THAT is why i downrate you

Apr 27, 2016
@jdarfdustion

Thank you for you're kind words. I it has taken 30 to spellen to so I be spellen often.


May 03, 2016
What an accomplishment from nou. He's turned "the noumenon is unknowable" to "noumenon is unknowledgeable".

May 03, 2016
I found it curious that "NiteSkyGerl" would all of a sudden show interest in troll rating my legitimate posts.....

Indeed, morons tend to leave Web-DNA,.....

I searched the word "wisdumb" in google as follows.... "site:phys.org wisdumb"

These are results in order as provided by google.....

AGreatWhopper
Post Deleted by Mods
NiteSkyGerl
AGreatWhopper
jim_xanara
AGreatWhopper
AGreatWhopper
jljenkins
NiteSkyGerl
AGreatWhopper
AGreatWhopper
AGreatWhopper

Interesting "NiteSkyGerl". Now it is clear that you are in fact a massive troll that controls all these accounts and many more [having troll rated me all at the same time]....

jim_xanara
AGreatWhopper
chileastro
antigoresockpuppet
fckthierreyhenry
BongThePuffin
john berry_hobbes
maloderousmiscreant
YoureAPeanut
GoshURStupid
jljenkins
NiteSkyGerl

The same sick child

May 03, 2016
What an accomplishment from nou. He's turned "the noumenon is unknowable" to "noumenon is unknowledgeable".


It what way, specifically? Do you have a counter argument? What I have posted that was factually incorrect? Are you able to articulate a counter argument?

No? Is that why you hide behind a multitude of screen-names,... because you're corrupt and don't know anything?

You're only capable of posting inane "characterizations", not debating substance?

May 03, 2016
Noumenon

1 /5 (1) 7 minutes ago
I found it curious that "NiteSkyGerl" would all of a sudden show interest in troll rating my legitimate posts.....


You really don't have a concept of variance and the falsify-ability criterion do you? Anyone that votes you down is the same person. Anyone that didn't vote you down and later commented is the same person. Spoiled little rat, you probably don't realize that effectively what you've said is, "I'll stomp my feet and throw a hissy fit if you don't comment and DON'T VOTE as well".

You're the kind of spoiled rat that starts out a first date by listing his requirements and "needs". Wake up. Your parents lied to you when they told you that everything in the world was either for your amusement or doesn't exist. Look at your rantings. That same, spoiled, binary logic.

May 03, 2016
The point about the lottery at the beginning is well taken. Or as the Divine Miss M sed...
https://www.youtu...rZ-dERbU

May 03, 2016
Stop lying troll. Your pack of screen names all mass 1-rated all my legitimate posts in the following thread all within minutes.....

http://phys.org/n...ite.html


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more