Why are today's philosophers so uninformed?

[Sinera]

Today on BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 410486.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9410000/9410486.stm)

But the question for me is rather also: Why do these many skeptics/materialist philosophers get media coverage all the time?

So why do journalists AND (self-proclaimed) "philosophers" still buy into sheer materialism? What is going on here? I thought we are just on the verge of a paradigm change? Still these guys get promoted like nothing else. What is happening here???

Why don't they talk (or know) about quantum physics, the paranormal, etc.? Why don't the know about idealist monism instead of only promoting materialist monism on one and religionism on the other side?

Why don't they talk about thinkers like e.g. T. Campbell or other progressive writers (and scientists!)? Why don't do reporters or columnists write about these scientists? How stupid are they? How uninformed? What is their agenda?

Why do they only contrast science with religion and dump anything else in between? The truth lies in the middle, but no one is interested in the middle. They just need to stir up controversy, so they go for the extremists again.

This you can read when a "chemist" :shock: turns into a philosopher:

"I think that science exposes the wonder of the world as it is. You don't need fantasies to build that sense of wonder. Science is true glory, whereas religion is fabricated glory." (...) "The religious notions of soul and spirit, of life everlasting and the final judgement, are nothing more, he says, than a "fantasy". - P. Atkins

Atkins = Dawkins 2.0, huh? So the skeptic religionists have yet another hero. :wink:

My goodness. His quote is so complete b*l*sh*t. This man has NO IDEA about reality! Still he is featured in the media and can sell his sh*t to a gullible crowd willing to swallow it and they will buy his book like they buy Dawkin's and Blackmore's and Dennett's stuff.

This s*cks. I am so fed up with mainstream media.

sorry, this is my rant day. :wink:

Cheers,
Volgerle

[CFTraveler]

It's a sad reality these people live in. Let's hope they never need faith, but the way things look....

[Sinera]

It's a bit nasty, but anyway, I always feel reminded so strongly of this quote by a great scientist (actually one of the founders of quantum theory):

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
- Max Planck

paraphrased short variants (taken from wikiquote):

"Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus." - "Truth never triumphs - its opponents just die out."

also:

"Science advances one funeral at a time."

(of course, i wish dawkins, atkins and the whole pack a long, happy and healthy life, I just wish that fewer and fewr with their world view will be born in future times for the sake of humanity :mrgreen: )

[AnimalMagnetism]

Ranting is one thing. However, I'd really like to have a serious answer to this question.

One other case I have seen recently is how Wikipedia can be disconnected from reality. Example: page on Alchemy.

Reality: there are various schools teaching Alchemy as a healing art, and many alchemists alive today.

Wikipedia version: Alchemy is an ancient art irrelevant to modern era. They don't even mention any healing aspect of it!?
Interestingly enough, Reiki does have a good information page on Wikipedia.

This came while discussing the issue: "Wikipedia could not care less about 'truth' or 'observable reality.'"

I came to the realization that some organizations go from rational skepticism to irrational skepticism (where they don't care about the truth) in order to get validation and approval from other skeptics.

Anyone can enlighten me on this level of ignorance? If I'm discussing about whether energies exist or not with a person in front of me, I can make him feel energy within 30 seconds. Now, I also started doing remote healing over the Internet (with their permission) and I think I freaked out a skeptic on a forum.

However, in terms of mainstream information, "observable reality is irrelevant" !?

I don't get it... yet.

[CFTraveler]

I think this sort of thing is individual- the people who wrote the Wiki article on Reiki were differently motivated than the people who wrote the entry on Alchemy. And there are so many types- from the 'Alchemy' Alchemy to the Hermetic Alchemy, for example- that it would take many hands and minds to write something comprehensive enough. I do think though, that Alchemists do their own thing, and only share within their own groups- of course, I could be wrong, not being into it.
The thing is, Wiki cares not about anything, because Wikipedia is not an organization, it's a tool- a tool to be used. Obviously, in the case of the Alchemy section, it's not used by the right people.
Why not write something yourself?

[Sinera]

Why not write something yourself?
Because it could be useless, CFT. He will get edited out very soon by the 'top dogs' there, often with flimsy arguments, even though he might add sources to underline his text. It happened to me so I know what I'm talking about. I had quoted good sources. It was just edited out, without giving a reason for it, just stating that the results / researchers / circumstances of that scientific study I mentioned (quoted and documented from literature!) were "dubious". (Had the results been different, they would have "liked" it I guess).
So yes, many of the people who claim (of themselves) to be adherents of rational skepticism have the upper hand. That is why I would never recommend Wiki as a reliable source for these kinds of topics. These people are very keen on have "their" version of reality presented there in the best light at Wiki. Their recursiveness to 'science' as the usual top argument is flimsy as well, since often it is 'scientism' and narrow-minded science which they try to propagate - that's a big difference.

[Tutor]

Why not write something yourself?
Because it could be useless, CFT. He will get edited out very soon by the 'top dogs' there, often with flimsy arguments, even though he might add sources to underline his text. It happened to me so I know what I'm talking about. I had quoted good sources. It was just edited out, without giving a reason for it, just stating that the results / researchers / circumstances of that scientific study I mentioned (quoted and documented from literature!) were "dubious". (Had the results been different, they would have "liked" it I guess).
So yes, many of the people who claim (of themselves) to be adherents of rational skepticism have the upper hand. That is why I would never recommend Wiki as a reliable source for these kinds of topics. These people are very keen on have "their" version of reality presented there in the best light at Wiki. Their recursiveness to 'science' as the usual top argument is flimsy as well, since often it is 'scientism' and narrow-minded science which they try to propagate - that's a big difference.

volgerle,

what you've noted here as being "useless" effort is often felt "just so" in this forum, just as you've pointed out about wikipedia, "...will get edited out very soon by the 'top dogs' there, often with flimsy arguments, even though...might add sources to underline...text".

so, i don't imagine you are informing CFT of anything that She isn't quite readily familiar with. I commend CFT for Her consistent and continuing juggling of "egos" herein this forum. mine included, of course; which i readily surrender to Her personal and administrative guidance, as it is, She must consider all "things/egos" within the balance. it aint all about "tim", i accept that first and foremost.

sincerely yours,

tim

[Serpentarius]

Why don't they talk (or know) about ... the paranormal, etc.?

They know about it, they don't talk about it simply because they think it is not real. That it is a mixture of made up fantasies, delusions and wishful thinking.

[AnimalMagnetism]

They know about it, they don't talk about it simply because they think it is not real. That it is a mixture of made up fantasies, delusions and wishful thinking.
Who is "they" ? Some people explore new realities while others remain in old fixed beliefs. There are lots of scientific researches that have been done by the NASA, governments and many other institutions about energies and many related phenomenons including telepathy and healing. It is even well-known that our equations of the Galaxy and Universe don't fit reality, as published by the NASA itself. (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/new-structure.html)

Let's say there would be 50% of progressive thinkers and 50% of conventional thinkers. Why is it that only the second half gets into medias positions where they can choose what is being published?

As for Wikipedia, you are right. You could spend hours writing good information in Wikipedia, but if it doesn't fit mainstream beliefs, others will flat out erase it within minutes. If one of main people editing and protecting the page doesn't undo the changes, the next skeptic that logs in will do it. It takes only one skeptic to erase hours of work from many other people.

[Serpentarius]

Who is "they" ?
Rationalists.


I personally don't care about what people believe in, I care about what the truth is. In order to give any value to any claim about reality, we have to be able to provide evidence supporting that claim. Therefore, faith is useless in the end. Faith is believing something without evidence supporting it. If you have evidence and facts, you don't need faith.

[AnimalMagnetism]

The thing about rationalists... is that they'll often put everything into question except their own beliefs.

Winston Wu exposes the common problems of many 'skeptics' on his website
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

I am a very rational person as well. I just moved my computer programming expertise into the field of understanding energies and our emotional system. Actually... somehow... many good healers I know were computer programmers!

In terms of modern energy work, you don't need faith when you understand how it works. You just do it.

[CFTraveler]

The thing about rationalists... is that they'll often put everything into question except their own beliefs.

Winston Wu exposes the common problems of many 'skeptics' on his website
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

I am a very rational person as well. I just moved my computer programming expertise into the field of understanding energies and our emotional system. Actually... somehow... many good healers I know were computer programmers!

In terms of modern energy work, you don't need faith when you understand how it works. You just do it. Good One. I'm going to steal the link and add it to a stickied topic we have on the subject.

[Sinera]

Let's say there would be 50% of progressive thinkers and 50% of conventional thinkers. Why is it that only the second half gets into medias positions where they can choose what is being published?
There is a simplified explanation: They are materialists. They think only this material world exists in their mechanistic and scientism-related terms and that there is no such thing as spiritual dimensions, metaphysics, life after death, a deeper sense, the paranormal etc.

That is why they cling to the need to control this world of which they believe (to know :mrgreen: ) that it's the ONLY THING THEY HAVE GOT. There is no bigger picture in a narrow-minded belief system.

Therefore they want to control minds, control opinions, control people. It is all about control. Wikipedia 'rationalist'* editor groups want to control Wikipedia and thus control 'official' opinion - because many people falsely believe in the simple formula 'oh, it's stated like that on Wiki so it must be true'.

The open-minded ones are not so crazy about writing there. They have a more relaxed and anti-dogmatic attitude towards manipulation of world-views and opinions.

Of course, I know this is black-and-white-painting now. There are many in-betweens. Maybe even the majority of people is 'in-between' and agnostic about many things, not just spiritual matters.
The problem: they don't get heard, they don't lobby, they don't manipulate public opinion because they do not form any pressure and lobby groups to do so. They have no incentive, they just live their lives.

(*btw, from an open-minded and holistic view, they are not rational at all, they are left-brained reductionists, which means they do not think in concepts and bigger pictures).

[Serpentarius]

On the other hand there are entire TV stations devoted to the supernatural. Just tune-in to one of those tele-evangelical networks. 8)

I think I can't perform miracles because I don't have enough money :( It seems your mystical abilities are proportional to the amount of money people send you. :|

[CFTraveler]

:D