quote:

---

Originally posted by Kruger

CV

Zaboravih, onda kad smo pričali o evoluciji, tu priču kako je planet Zemlja mlada su pokrenuli znanstvenici i stručnjaci ( ne želim ulaziti u razloge, niti u to jesu li te tvrdnje točne ), no ako je to istina onda ni planet Zemlja neće još dugo opstati, puno brže će se život na njemu ugasiti nego što govore darvinisti.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by culture vulture

quote:

---

Originally posted by dupli

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kruger


U drugom filmu dio stručnjaka pobija neke evolucionističke tvrdnje, po meni pokazuju dobru volju, ne bahate se.

---

Slažem se da tako izgleda na početku. I sam sam se iznenadio kako otvoreno i argumentirano kreću. No, negdje na geologiji sam skužio da je dokumentarac fantastično mudro složen konstrukt. Počni gledati teme same za sebe ili ispremješano. Kad se izgubi nit uvjetovana montažom dokumentarca dojam je potpuno drugačiji. Naravno, svi dokumentarci se tako rade. Inače, nisam pobornik modernih znanstveno popularnih dokumentaraca. Tehnologija i animacije se više ne koriste da bi dodatno objasnile nego da bi stvorile emocionalnu reakciju kod gledatelja. To je loše. Ne gledaš dokumentarce da bi se zabavio već da bi bolje razumio temu na zabavan način.

---

Evo razloga zasto sam ja skeptican prema kreacionistickoj prici.
Znam barem nekoliko primjera (za sad ih necu navoditi, bojim se da opet ne odemo u teske offtopice...) gdje se pseudoznanstvena prica iskonstruirala i desetljecima opstaje na nacin da se navode "dokazi" iz citavog niza podrucja - tipa: povijest, geologija, kemija, medicina, botanika...
I kad se pricu prica, navodi se sva ta podrucja, jedno za drugim, u jednom emocionalno nabijenom crescendu, s namjerom da se skepsu izbije cistom brojkom podrucja u kojima pronalazimo te "dokaze".
Premisa je da, cak i ako su "dokazi" u nekom od tih podrucja malo i labavi, tu je toliko drugih podrucja da to jednostavno MORA biti istina.
Kad se, medjutim, prereze nit te emocionalno nabijene naracije i stvari gledaju svaka sama za sebe, ispada da su "dokazi" u svima zapravo jako upitni, ako uopce i zasluzuju ikakvu paznju.
I onda, kad prodjes kroz sva ta podrucja, na koncu vidis da ni u jednom nema nista. Ali oni kojima ta pseudoznanstvena ideja/teorija pase u njihov svjetonazor, nastavljaju govoriti: "Nije bitno je li neki detalj kriv ili nije, ti od drveta ne vidis sumu!"
Poucen tim drugim primjerima pseudoznanosti, jednostavno ne mogu biti ponesen takvim dokumentarcem.
Moze me nagnati da se informiram bolje o temi, ali da se moram kladiti, stavio bih lovu na to da je rijec o pseudoznanosti.
I neka vas, ako nemate puno iskustva s pseudoznanoscu, ne zavara to sto su svi ljudi u dokumentarcu doktori znanosti. To nista ne znaci. Ja, recimo, sto vise citam ranokrscanske tekstove, sve vise vjerujem. Moji kolege, koji su nevjernici, sto vise citaju te iste tekstove, sve manje vjeruju. Isto je tako i s prirodnim znanstvenicima. Cuo sam masu biologa koji ce reci: sto vise proucavam zivi svijet, sve vise vjerujem (God through the microscope fenomen). Znanstvenici nevjernici ce vam, naravno, reci posve suprotno - sto vise proucavam zivi svijet, sve manje vjerujem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kruger

culture vulture

Postoji nekakav problem, ako se radi o doktorima znanosti ( mada meni takav problem nikad neće predstavljati pomutnju jer iako dolazim iz nekog drugog područja znam o čemu se radi ) koje je verificirao bivši papa Benedikt onda je to malo zanimljivije ( to je papa koji mnogo tih starih stvari htio staviti na mjesto ).
Kreacinisti dolaze iz svjetonazora protestanata ( naravno čudni su ) , no papa katolik ih je verificirao iz sljedbe katolika.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by culture vulture

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kruger

culture vulture

Postoji nekakav problem, ako se radi o doktorima znanosti ( mada meni takav problem nikad neće predstavljati pomutnju jer iako dolazim iz nekog drugog područja znam o čemu se radi ) koje je verificirao bivši papa Benedikt onda je to malo zanimljivije ( to je papa koji mnogo tih starih stvari htio staviti na mjesto ).
Kreacinisti dolaze iz svjetonazora protestanata ( naravno čudni su ) , no papa katolik ih je verificirao iz sljedbe katolika.

---

Pojasni ovo, molim te, ne znam o čem pričaš.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by culture vulture

Da odmah jasno kažem: Krešimir Mišak mi je simpa tip i dobar voditelj i ne želim se ovdje pretjerano usredotočavati ni na njega osobno ni na njegovu emisiju. Mene zanima malo šira priča.

S jedne strane, mene fascinira u što je sve ljudsko biće sposobno povjerovati.
Suprotno prosvjetiteljsko-modernističkom vjerovanju u napredak i pobjedu razuma (ljudska povijest viđena kao mukotrpna evolucija od mraka neznanja i magijsko-religijsko-mitoloških modela svijeta prema današnjem znanstvenom i racionalnom modelu), ja vjerujem da je ljudsko biće inherentno iracionalno. (To nije samo moje osobno uvjerenje, nego me podupiru i povijest i kršćanska teologija i sva narativna umjetnost koja nešto vrijedi i suvremena psihologija.) Mi imamo nešto razuma, ali nama prvenstveno upravljaju emocije i urođeno svojstvo mozga da brani svoje modele svijeta pod svaku cijenu. Magijsko-religijsko-mitološki pogled na svijet, dakle, po meni nije nešto što pripada nekom prošlom povijesnom razdoblju, vremenu kad jednostavno nismo znali ništa bolje, nego je prisutan uvijek, u svakom čovjeku i u svakom razdoblju, nevezano uz nivo obrazovanja, kulturu, psihološki profil ili bilo što. Kod različitih ljudi se ta jedna, uvjetno rečeno, iracionalnost različito manifestira, ali kod svakog postoji u nekom obliku. Možda, ne pitajući za dokaz, ili barem objašnjenje, vjerujete da su limun i soda bikarbona sposobni izliječiti rak. Ili vjerujete u reinkarnaciju. Ili na izborima glasate prema tome na kojoj su se strani vaši djedovi našli 1941. Ili ste čak neonacist. Ili ne cijepite dijete zato što ne želite da oboli od autizma. Ili se bojite mraka. Ili ste uletjeli u brak s osobom koju zapravo uopće niste poznavali. Ili ste kupili kremu za pomlađivanje s nekim koenzimom za kojega realno ne znate ni postoji li uopće, a kamoli što je. Ili trenirate tai chi uvjereni da vam to koristi zdravlju. Ili se "liječite" homeopatijom. Ili ste upisali fakultet ne misleći uopće što ćete raditi kad ga završite, vjerujući da će se to nekako samo od sebe srediti. Ili vjerujete da rašljari mogu naći vodu. Ili ste jeli Sai Babin pepeo. Ili umjesto morske kupujete himalajsku sol. Kod svakoga se ta iracionalnost, kažem, drugačije ispoljava, ali kod svakoga postoji. Nju eksploatiraju svi koji znaju - političari, vidovnjaci, teoretičari zavjera, internet scammeri, marketinški stručnjaci, alternativni liječnici, gurui ovoga i onoga. I mene to fascinira. Fascinira me da netko može vjerovati da se može živjeti od gledanja u sunce, fascinira me da se toliko ljudi koji više nisu kršćani, umjesto da prijeđu na taj neki navodno napredniji, "moderni" model svijeta, vraća neopoganskim kultovima, šamanizmu, vještičarenju i gatanju. G.K. Chesterton je rekao: "Jednom kad više ne vjerujete u Boga, ne vjerujete ni u što - nego u bilo što." I mene fascinira da to stvarno može biti BILO ŠTO, da nema toliko sulude i glupe stvari a da netko ne bi mogao u to vjerovati.
I zato obožavam gledati emisije kao što je "Na rubu znanosti". (Ne smijem se ja tim ljudima. Kao što je rekao Spinoza: "Ja sam se neumorno trudio ne da ismijavam, ne da oplakujem, ne da prezirem ljudsko ponašanje, nego da ga razumijem.")
Ja, dakle, nipošto ne zamjeram Mišaku što daje javni prostor ljudima s "ruba znanosti".
Ono što mu zamjeram jest to što u njegovoj emisiji nema propitivanja tih vjerovanja, barem mrvice provjere, traženja suprotnog mišljenja, kritičke analize.
Bila je prije nekih 5-6 godina i peticija znanstvenika da se emisija prebaci u zabavni program, ali ja ne vidim što bi se time postiglo. Ljudi koji vjeruju u te stvari vjerovat će u njih u kojem god terminu i u sklopu kojeg god programa se emisija prikazivala. Ono što je potrebno jest da se emisiji doda kritičko propitivanje toga što gost tvrdi - "Je li ovo istina? Ima li za ovo dokaza? Može li ovo izdržati test egzaktne znanosti?" A odgovor bi skoro uvijek bio: "Ne".

Ta jedna iracionalnost svakog ljudskog bića mi je, kažem, fascinantna sama po sebi. Ali pseudoznanost to diže na posve drugi nivo.
Ljudi vjeruju u najluđe besmislice bez imalo provjere, bez ikakvog propitivanja, zato što su emocionalna i iracionalna bića i zato što im se to nešto u što počinju vjerovati uklapa u njihov model svijeta. Npr. teorija mlade Zemlje o kojoj smo nedavno razgovarali na temi o evoluciji. Ljudi koji prihvate tu teoriju, prihvaćaju je zato jer im ona njihov unutarnji svijet čini ljepšim, unosi u njega neki smisao, svjetlost, boje koje im se sviđaju. Sve im, zahvaljujući tome, nekako sjedne na mjesto. Ali istu stvar ćete čuti i u ispovijestima neonacista o tome kako su se navukli na neonacizam. Pogledali su neki dokumentarac, ili pročitali neku knjigu, i sve im je u njihovom unutarnjem svijetu napokon poprimilo neki smisao. Nakon toga, mozak je branio taj novi model stvarnosti i sve mu je prilagođavao, činjenice koje se u njega uklapaju je preuveličavao, one koje se ne uklapaju je, ako ne već odbacivao, onda svakako umanjivao. I tako je to sa svim ludorijama u koje ljudi povjeruju.
Kad se, međutim, neka ludorija počne razrađivati u sustav i kad se počne nazivati znanošću, e tu tek počinje prava magija. Sad ljudi ne samo da vjeruju u neku besmislicu, nego počinju čitav svijet promatrati u svjetlu te besmislice. Počinju se pozivati na znanosti o kojima nemaju nikakvog pojma, a kad im pravi znanstvenici iz tih područja pokušaju objasniti koliko su u krivu, samo se još više utvrde u uvjerenju da je čitav akademski svijet u nekoj vrsti zavjere protiv njihove istine. Počinje "recognition bias" i u svemu se "prepoznaje" elemente koji su u nekom odnosu s predmetom vjerovanja. Počinju opsesija i paranoidan način razmišljanja (rezoniranje na način: "Kineski su carevi svoje pravo na vlast temeljili na tome da su potomci zmajeva? Čekaj malo... Zmajevi su u biti reptili, zar ne? Dakle, i Kineski su carevi bili dio te oligarhije reptila. Ti su reptili POSVUDA." - David Icke).
Primjera ima koliko hoćete: David Icke i njegovi reptili; Daniken i njegovi prethistorijski astronauti; Immanuel Velikovski i njegovi 'Worlds in Collision'; Ian Wilson i njegova "sindonologija"; pa onda Novi svjetski poredak, iluminati, masoni, Rotschildi i ostala kompanija; chemtrailsi; tin foil hat i slične EMR gluposti; bad pharma; subliminalne poruke; otmice vanzemaljaca; pseudoarheologija, kriptozoologija, potrage za Atlantidom, energetika piramida i slične grane "znanosti" koje nam otkrivaju povijest koju službena znanost krije; pa u biti čitava alternativna medicina; antropozofija; rašljarenje; parapsihologija; astrologija; biodinamička agrikultura...

Isaac Asimov u trenutku kad se znanstvena zajednica pokazala nemoćnom pobiti besmislene tvrdnje Immanuela Velikovskog:

'What does one do with a heretic? We know the answer if the "one" referred to is a powerful religious othodoxy: the heretic can be burned at the stake. If the "one" is a powerful political orthodoxy, the heretic can be sent to a concentration camp. If the "one" is a powerful socioeconomic orthodoxy, the heretic can be prevented from earning a living.
'But what if the "one" is a powerful scientific orthodoxy? In that case, very little can be done, because even the most powerful scientific orthodoxy is not very powerful.
(...)
'[T]he religious, political, and socioeconomic orthodoxies can be universal in their power. A religious orthodoxy in full flight visits its punishments not on priests alone; nor a political one on politicians alone; nor a socioeconomic one on society leaders alone. No one is immune to their displeasure. The scientific orthodoxy, however, is completely helpless if the heretic is not himself a professional scientist - if he does not depend on grants or appointments, and if he places his views before the world through some medium other than the learned journals. Therefore, if we are to consider scientific heretics, we must understand that there are two varieties with different powers and different immunities.

'Let us consider the two kinds of scientific heretics. (1) There are those who arise from within the professional world of science and who are subject to punishment by the orthodoxy. We might call these heretics from within "endoheretics." (2) There are those who arise form outside the professional world of science and who are immune to direct punishment by the orthodoxy. These heretics are the "exoheretics."

'Of the two, the endoheretics are far less known to the general public. The endoheretic speaks in the same language as does the orthodoxy, and both views, the endoheretical and the orthodox, are equally obscure to the nonscientist, who can, generally speaking, understand neither the one nor the other nor the nature of the conflict between them.

'It follows that if we consider the great endoheresies of the past, we find that the general public was not ordinarily involved. In the few cases where the public was involved, it was almost invariably on the side of orthodoxy. The patron saint of all scientific heresies, Galileo, was, of course, an endoheretic. He was as deeply versed in Aristotelian physics and Ptolemaic astronomy , which he dethroned, as were any of his Aristotelian/Ptolemaic opponents. And since in those days and in his particular society, the scientific and religious orthodoxies were the same, Galileo had to run far greater risks than later endoheretics did. Facing the Inquisition, he had to consider the possibility, not of a cancelled grant, but of physical torture. Yet we cannot suppose that there was any great popular outcry on behalf of the rebel. The general public was not concerned, nor even aware, of the dispute. Had it been made aware, it would certainly sided with orthodoxy.
-
'Next to Galileo, the greatest of the endoheretics was Charles Darwin (...) Here, the general public did know of the controversy and did, in a very general and rough way, have a dim view of what it was about. And the public was definitely on the side of the orthodoxy. (...)

'Galileo and Darwin won out. Along the way, a number of endoheretics did win. But never by public pressure. And never by a majority vote of the general public. They won out because science is a self-correcting structure, and because observation, experimentation, and reasoning eventually support those heresies which represent a more accurate view of the Universe and bury those orthodoxies which are outpaced. In the process, orthodoxy gets a bad press. Looking back on the history of science, we might suppose that every endoheretic was right - that each wore the white hat of heroism against an evil and short-sighted orthodoxy. But that is only because the history science is naturally selective. Only the endoheretic who was, in tge end, shown to be right makes his mark. For each of those, there may have been perhaps fifty endoheretics who were quite wrong, whose views are therefore scarcely remembered, and who are not recorded even as a footnote in the history books - or, if they are, it is for other, nonheretical, work.

'What, then, would you have the orthodox do? Is it better to reject everything and be wrong once in fifty times - or accept everything and be wrong 49 out of 50 times and, in the meantime, send science down endless blind allies. The best strategy, of course, would be neither, but to reject the 49 wrong out of hand and to accept and cherish the one right. Unfortunately, the day that the endoheretical pearl shines out so obviously amid the endoheretical garbage as to be easily plucked is the day of the millennium. There is, alas, no easy way of distinguishing the stroke of genius from the stroke of folly. In fact, many an utterly nonsensical suggestion has seemed to carry much more the mark of turth than the cleverly insightful stroke of genius.

'There is no way, then, of dealing with the endoheresies other than by a firm (but not blind or spiteful) opposition. Each must run the gauntlet that alone can test it.

'For the self-correcting structure works. There is delay and heartbreak often enough, but it works.
(...)
'The problem of endoheresy, then, is not a truly serious one for science (though it may be, we all know, for the individual endoheretic); and the questioning process is not one which must be carried out in public.

'But what of exoheresy?
We had better first be sure of what we mean by an exoheretic. Science is split into endless specialties, and a specialist who is narrow-minded and insecure may see anyone who is not bull's-eye on target within the specialty as an "outsider".
(...)
'But this kind of attitude won't do. If we wish to be fine enough and narrow enough, then all scientific heretics are exoheretics in the eyes of the sufficiently orthodox, and the term becomes meaningless. Nor should we label as exoheretics those who are not formally educated but who, through self-education, have reached the peak of professional excellence. Let us, instead, understand the word exoheretic to refer only to someone ho is a real outsider, one who does not understand the painstaking structure built up by science, and who therefore attacks it without understanding.

'The typical exoheretic is so unaware of the intimate structure of science, of the methods and philosophy of science, of the very language of science, that his views are virtually unintelligible from the scientific standpoint. As a consequence, he is generally ignored by scientists. If exoheretical views are forced upon scientists, the reaction is bound to be puzzlement or amusement or contempt. In any case, it would be exceptional if the exoheresy were deemed worthy of any sort of comment.

'In frustration, the exoheretic is very likely to appeal over the heads of scientists to teh general public. He may even be successful in this, since his inability to speak the language of science does not necessarily prevent him form speaking the language of the public. The appeal to the public is, of course, valueless from the scientific standpoint. The findings of science cannot be cancelled or reversed by majority vote, or by the higest legislative or executive fiat.
(...)
'Nevertheless, the appeal to the public has other rewards than that of establishing scientific proof. (1) A favorable public response is soul-satisfying. The exoheretic can easily convince himself that his position at the center of a cult demonstrates the value of his views. He can easily argue himself into believing that people would not flock to nonsense, though all history shows otherwise. (2) A favorable public response can be lucrative. It is well known that books and lectures dealing favorably with a popular cult do far better than do books and lectures debunking it, even when the books in favor may be poorly written and reasoned, whereas the books against may be models of lucidity and rationality. (3) A favorable public response may hound scientists into open opposition, and they may express, with injudicious force, their opinion of the obvious nonsense of the exoheretical views. This very opposition, casting the exoheretic into the role of the martyr, works to accentuate the first two advantages.

'Public support or no, the exoheretic virtually never proves to be right. (How can he be right when he, quite literally, doesn't know what he's talking about?) Of course, he may prove to have said something somewhere in his flood of words that bears some resemblance to something that later proves to be so, and his coincidental concurrence of word and fact may be hailed by his followers as proving all the rest of the corpus of his work right. This outcome, however, has only cultic value.

'We see, then, the vast difference between the effects of the views of endoheretics and exoheretics. First, the public is generally not interested in the endoheretic, or, if aware of him at all, is hostile to him. The endoheretic therefore rarely profits from his heresy in a material way. The public, on the other hand, can be very interested in the exoheretic and can support him with a partisan and even religious fervor, so that the exoheretic may, in a material way, profit very considerably by his heresy.

'Second, the endoheretic is sometimes right, and since startling scientific advances usually begin as heresies, some of the greatest names in science have been endoheretics. The exoheretic, on the other hand, is virtually never right, and the history of science contains no great advance, to my knowledge, initiated by an exoheretic.

'One might combine these generalizations and, working backward (not always a safe procedure), state that when a view denounced by scientists as false is, nevertheless, popular with the general public, the mere fact of that popularity is strong evidence in favor of its worthlessness. It is on the basis of public popularity of particular beliefs, for instance, that I, even without personal investigation of such matters, feel it safe to be extremely skeptical about ancient astronauts, or about modern astronauts in UFO's, or about the value of talking to plants, or about psi phenomena, or about spiritualism, or about astrology.'

'Of all the exoheretics, Velikovsky has come closest to discomfiting the science he has attacked, and has most successfully forced science to take him seriously. Why is that? Well -

(1) Velikovsky has been a psychiatrist, so that he has training in a scientific specialty of sorts and is not an utter exoheretic. What's more, he has the faculty of sounding as though he knows what he is talking about when he invades the precincts of astronomy. He doesn't make very many elementary mistakes, and he is able to use the language of science sufficiently well to impress a layman.

(2) He is an interesting writer. It's fun to read his books. I have read every book he has published and hope to read any he writes in the future. Although he doesn't lure me into accepting his views, I can well see where those less knowledgeable in the fields Velikovsky deals with would succumb.

(3) Velikovsky's views in Worlds in Collision are designed to demonstrate that the Bible has a great deal of literal truth in it, that the miraculous events described in the Old Testament really happened as described.

Ali čak ni to nije pomoglo. Velikovskijanaca ima i dan danas.

Ono što ja, dakle, zamjeram Mišaku jest, po riječima Isaaca Asimova, što nam predstavlja znanstvene "egzoheretike" bez da nam kaže što znastvena zajednica ima za reći.
Toliko za ovaj put, post je i ovako PREDUGAČAK (SORRY!), ali ako hoćeš dalje - možemo i dalje.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kruger

quote:

---

Originally posted by culture vulture

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kruger

culture vulture

Postoji nekakav problem, ako se radi o doktorima znanosti ( mada meni takav problem nikad neće predstavljati pomutnju jer iako dolazim iz nekog drugog područja znam o čemu se radi ) koje je verificirao bivši papa Benedikt onda je to malo zanimljivije ( to je papa koji mnogo tih starih stvari htio staviti na mjesto ).
Kreacinisti dolaze iz svjetonazora protestanata ( naravno čudni su ) , no papa katolik ih je verificirao iz sljedbe katolika.

---

Pojasni ovo, molim te, ne znam o čem pričaš.

---

Jednostavno, papa Benedikt je priznao krecainoste ( iako dolaze od protestanata ). To što se maknuo sasvim sigurno nema veze s ovom temom.

---