Scientists are causing Creationism (and the like)!

[mediumaevum]

Creationists and people who believe in ghosts or other paranormal stuff, are actually caused by scientists keeping too ignorant to them, placing Creationists and believers in paranormal stuff in the same box as lunatics, in that they don't want to discuss anything with them.

I believe this is the main reason for the rise of creationism and ghost stories in TV documentaries these days.
They believe, with a good reason, that scientists are "up to something". By keeping ignorant to these people, scientists are actually ignoring the problem of creationists and the like.

It certainly doesn't help when they stay arrogant towards them and call creationists and the like "lunatics" (or likewise) or even worse yet:
To simply say "read books". People don't have the time or energy to search around for the evidences. If you have evidence for a theory, you HAVE to present it DIRECTLY to those asking for it. You shouldn't just point to a book, and then say "read it!" - people don't want to read an entire book just to get the line or sentence that convince them. Point at least to the pages in the book.

Too many times, I have come across scientific or semi-scientific articles and books, refering to other litterature without specifying the page number or specific chapter where the source of the claim made in the article has its origin. Actually, worse yet it is too common for scientists to simply state the authors, not the book!!!

Like in this Wikipedia article about the origins of the New Testament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Note that one of the sources of the claims says:

^ McDonald & Sanders, page 277

Nobody knows who Mcdonald & Sanders are, but after a search on Google, I found out it was the book Canon Debate with the ISBN-10 number 0801047080
It simply ain't fair to hide your sources that way! People should NOT spend time searching for YOUR sources!


Scientists don't even want to discuss ghosts or other paranormal phenomena

The other reason science is looked down upon in various areas amongst common people, is because scientists don't even want to discuss, they don't even want any concern about what matters for common folklore, like paranormal phenomena. The least they could do would be to at least spend some time studying the subject and doing some research.

I heard, during the end part in a TV documentary about life after death, 5 years ago, that scientists, in the coming years, had to figure out wether or not people with Near Death Experiences could actually recall and see things they wouldn't otherwise be able to see, like placing hidden stuff behind boxes or furniture etc. and then ask questions to those who experienced it, what they saw, and do some statistics to see wether these people were actually able to see things (accurately!) they wouldn't otherwise have seen.

I've heard NOTHING about this research, after 5 years!!!

I suspsect scientists are simply abandoning it. Scientists should serve the common folks, not the interests of themselves, and the fact that they do otherwise, and only spend time on research on subjects THEY (scientists) find interesting instead of subjects that common folks find interesting, is the same as being a snob!

I'm not saying scientists should come to the conclusion in favor of the paranormal. I'm just saying they should spend some time researching it!

Scientists are acting like an elite group, and that is THE reason of the rise of Creationism and paranormal TV series!

[Plu]

I'm not sure if you're joking or just really stupid. Every science journal in the world is open to you, and the "easy lines" are spread to everyone, everywhere. Creationists just reject them and refuse to listen to anything.

[josephpalazzo]

I'm not saying scientists should come to the conclusion in favor of the paranormal. I'm just saying they should spend some time researching it!

After 500 years of scientific investigation, there is no evidence of paranormal activity. If some individual has suddenly stumbled across some hard evidence then it's up to him to show the evidence and convince the sceptical scientific community. Considering that funds for scientific research has been dwindling over the past decades, few respectful scientists are going to spend their time chasing ghosts.

Scientists are acting like an elite group, and that is THE reason of the rise of Creationism and paranormal TV series!

Most of this rise is due to TV channels in search of sensationalism in order to boost their ratings, as this will attract sponsors and more money into the coffers of TV producers. And it has always been the tactics of science detractors to portray scientists as elite, a tactic that is successful in the US because the country has a long history against intellectualism.

[stromboli]

I grew up in a house that was supposedly haunted. Applying skeptical analysis to every "event" that occurred in 12 years, not one thing that happened could not be explained away by natural causes such as aging drying wood causing separation leading to creaking boards, and so on. I studied paranormal stuff and conspiracy theories for years, and can say that more time has been spent on it than it deserves.

I can count on my basic cable at least 3-5 shows a night on some form of paranormal claim. Every so-called examination of paranormal, ghosts and so on amounts to hucksterism selling BS as some form of rational examination. It is crap, period.

[Colanth]

Scientists can't "discuss" science with people who refuse to acquire the minimum level of education needed to understand the discussion.  Are scientists elitists?  If by "elitist" you mean someone with knowledge that most people don't have, yes they are.  But a scientist discussing evolution with a creationist is like a fish trying to describe breathing with gills to a man - the creationist just isn't equipped to understand the discussion (in this case, not intellectually equipped).

The problem isn't scientists, it's that creationists want scientists to explain science in ways that require no knowledge or thought - even science that requires years of study before you can get a small glimpse of what the particular science is about.  For instance, no one without at least a secondary school education is going to understand evolution, so creationists, many of whom have 6 years or less of education (or, worse, only religious indoctrination that was called "education") refuse to accept evolution because they're not capable of understanding it.  Creationists have been taught that to understand something all you have to do is believe it.  It's false, but they refuse to accept that it's false.

As far as the supernatural, science is he study of the natural, so of course scientists refuse to discuss, as scientists, the supernatural.  The scientific method can't be applied to beliefs or anecdotes.  If a creationist has actual evidence of the supernatural (not "we can't explain it in any natural way", which is all anyone has ever come up with as "evidence"), science will examine that evidence.  There's currently a US$1 million prize for the first person to provide actual evidence of the supernatural.  No one has been able to claim it yet.

But don't blame scientists for not being able to educate the uneducable - it's the fault of their parents for not making sure that their children were educated for the 21st century, not the 1st century.

[Solitary]

Scientists are causing Creationism (and the like)!

This is a non sequitur in logic. Creationism is caused by ignorance of how real science works and magical thinking and superstitious nonsense. All supernatural events have been shown to be bogus by science and magicians that know how easily people are fooled in their ignorance. The Discovery Chanel used to be reliable and about science until recently when it was bought by people that want sensationalism instead of facts. TV has Hill Billy Vampires, ghost stories, supernatural events, mermaids, prehistoric creatures shown as real, people living with dinosaurs, Science fiction that is just that: fiction that Einstein hated, and so-called "Reality" TV which I find hilarious if there weren't people that actually believe it is real.  :roll:    #-o  :rollin:  Solitary

[Smartmarzipan]

Scientists are acting like an elite group, and that is THE reason of the rise of Creationism and paranormal TV series!

You mean scientists act like people who have actually taken the time to do their research. This bothers lazy people because, well, that's just too much work for them. The reason these types of shows exist is because it's cheap and easy entertainment that panders to lazy people who can't think for themselves. And creationists exist because reality and facts threaten their narrow worldviews.

Stop blaming intelligent, hardworking people for the failings of others.

[mediumaevum]

I'm not sure if you're joking or just really stupid. Every science journal in the world is open to you, and the "easy lines" are spread to everyone, everywhere. Creationists just reject them and refuse to listen to anything.

That's not entirely correct.
Many science journals are locked, in the way that you have to subscribe to their newspaper and pay for the scientific results.

Also, you don't seem to have read my post, especially not the part of it where the quotations and linking to sources in many scientific books or articles refer to authors, rather than the actual specific works of the authors.

I have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.

It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.

And lastly, I'd kindly ask that you don't call me stupid. I wasn't expecting that kind of retoric on an intellectual forum like this...

[Smartmarzipan]

I'm not sure if you're joking or just really stupid. Every science journal in the world is open to you, and the "easy lines" are spread to everyone, everywhere. Creationists just reject them and refuse to listen to anything.

That's not entirely correct.
Many science journals are locked, in the way that you have to subscribe to their newspaper and pay for the scientific results.

Also, you don't seem to have read my post, especially not the part of it where the quotations and linking to sources in many scientific books or articles refer to authors, rather than the actual specific works of the authors.

I have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.

It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.

And lastly, I'd kindly ask that you don't call me stupid. I wasn't expecting that kind of retoric on an intellectual forum like this...

Wait, wait, wait. You're saying that because authors of scientific books don't have a source for everything right there on the page, they are what's causing shows like "Ghost Hunters"? Do you realize that the people that watch shows like that are probably not even bothering with the books that you're reading, much less would they care about citing sources?

Are you fucking serious? If you want some intellectual discussion, please don't give us ridiculous premises like this.

[Plu]

You seem to be confusing creationists and people who actually use their brain. Creationists aren't caused by the requirement to pay for highly specialised research, they are caused by people rejecting even a 5 line explanation of scientific research designed for children.

Have you ever actually talked to a creationists? Lack of detailed sources is the last of the reasons why they think the way they do. Not even knowing what a source is would be among the first.

[josephpalazzo]

the part of it where the quotations and linking to sources in many scientific books or articles refer to authors, rather than the actual specific works of the authors.

This is a common in the industry.  For example in Introduction to Quantum Fields inCurved Spacetime and the Hawking Effect

On page 54, where the references are listed, you get, taking the first reference as an example:

[1] T. Jacobson, "Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equation of state,"
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9504004].

The name of the author is listed first, followed by the title of the article, the name of the publication paper and year. So when an article is written whether in a journal or newspaper, using the name of the author as reference is just common practice.

[Icarus]

I'm not sure if you're joking or just really stupid. Every science journal in the world is open to you, and the "easy lines" are spread to everyone, everywhere. Creationists just reject them and refuse to listen to anything.

That's not entirely correct.
Many science journals are locked, in the way that you have to subscribe to their newspaper and pay for the scientific results.

Also, you don't seem to have read my post, especially not the part of it where the quotations and linking to sources in many scientific books or articles refer to authors, rather than the actual specific works of the authors.

I have many books written by universities, and virtually all their sources only state the respective authors. While I do know where some of the actual sources are refered to in the end (ie. which books, articles etc.) it is an irritating problem that persists: That I have to Google the authors and spend time finding the specific books or articles.

Do you know why science journals cost money? Because research is very expensive. A laymen couldn't understand most of what is talked about in science journals so I'm not sure why they would want access to the full article. The abstracts are always free and it gives a short summery of what the paper is all about, which is enough for anyone who isn't doing their own scientific research. If you want to read up on a single author google their name, they love making their research known.

It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.

By saying this you are giving me the right to call you very stupid. Do you understand how much time and effort a researcher puts into a single paper? Obviously not, which is why you're stupid.

And lastly, I'd kindly ask that you don't call me stupid. I wasn't expecting that kind of retoric on an intellectual forum like this...

You can't say the things you said, then pretend that you've contributed something on any intellectual level. You've contributed ignorance and stupidity, which gives people the right to call you stupid.

[mediumaevum]

Scientists can't "discuss" science with people who refuse to acquire the minimum level of education needed to understand the discussion.  Are scientists elitists?  If by "elitist" you mean someone with knowledge that most people don't have, yes they are.  But a scientist discussing evolution with a creationist is like a fish trying to describe breathing with gills to a man - the creationist just isn't equipped to understand the discussion (in this case, not intellectually equipped).

By elitists I wasn't refering to their education level. Anyone can in principle get an education. It just requires hard work.

By elitist I was refering to those who only publish their scientific journals to (paid) subscription. If it is science, that should be known to everyone or is relating to the general public good, let it be free for everyone!

The problem isn't scientists, it's that creationists want scientists to explain science in ways that require no knowledge or thought - even science that requires years of study before you can get a small glimpse of what the particular science is about.  For instance, no one without at least a secondary school education is going to understand evolution, so creationists, many of whom have 6 years or less of education (or, worse, only religious indoctrination that was called "education") refuse to accept evolution because they're not capable of understanding it.  Creationists have been taught that to understand something all you have to do is believe it.  It's false, but they refuse to accept that it's false.

I have no education level AT ALL.

But I do understand the basic principles behind evolution and I agree with all of it.
There are people with way higher education (professors and the like) than me who also know the Darwinian principles, but who refuse to accept the facts. Why people won't accept facts even though they understand it, is a mystery to me.

As far as the supernatural, science is he study of the natural, so of course scientists refuse to discuss, as scientists, the supernatural.  The scientific method can't be applied to beliefs or anecdotes.  If a creationist has actual evidence of the supernatural (not "we can't explain it in any natural way", which is all anyone has ever come up with as "evidence"), science will examine that evidence.  There's currently a US$1 million prize for the first person to provide actual evidence of the supernatural.  No one has been able to claim it yet.

The problem is that what we call supernatural today, may not be supernatural tomorrow, because if we find a scientific explanation for it, even though it breaks with the traditional scientific understanding of the world, the supernatural is just natural.

Like, for instance, I bet that in a tiny second, Quantum Entanglement was considered supernatural that had to be investigated. Einsten called it "spooky action at a distance" for a reason. Today it has been acknowledged that it does occur - and we have another understanding of how and why it works, so it is no longer supernatural.

But don't blame scientists for not being able to educate the uneducable - it's the fault of their parents for not making sure that their children were educated for the 21st century, not the 1st century.

It requires no formal education to understand basic principles of statistics or looking at the evolution of plants and small animals and apply it to larger scales like humans and whole societies. I did it, so can everyone else. It's the simplest of the sciences.

I just can't do the advanced mathematical equations.

In regards to ghosts, there needs virtually nothing to prove or disprove of the theory of ghosts.
The experiment with Near Death Experiences is the simplest research that can be conducted and explained to the public:

Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.

But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.

I wonder why.

[Icarus]

In regards to ghosts, there needs virtually nothing to prove or disprove of the theory of ghosts.
The experiment with Near Death Experiences is the simplest research that can be conducted and explained to the public:

Ask 100 patients with Near Death Experience what they saw of hidden stuff behind boxes, furniture etc. while they were unconcsious and dying (or dead) after they've been ressucitated, and compare the results. If there are enough people to actually report the accurate precise positions of the hidden stuff, that they couldn't possibly know of, conduct the experiment again. And again. This time with 200, then 500, then 1000.

But even though the scientists promissed to do so, nobody has wanted to actually start the project yet.

I wonder why.

Because you didn't bother to find out, a paper exists on this exact topic. I would find it for you but my experience with people who haven't looked up something before claiming it doesn't exist, is that you wouldn't be interested in reading it even if I found it for you. I've found over 20 research papers for people who never bother to read them  :(

[mediumaevum]

Do you know why science journals cost money? Because research is very expensive. A laymen couldn't understand most of what is talked about in science journals so I'm not sure why they would want access to the full article. The abstracts are always free and it gives a short summery of what the paper is all about, which is enough for anyone who isn't doing their own scientific research. If you want to read up on a single author google their name, they love making their research known.

The abstracts just aint enough for me all the time.
Sometimes, I really wish I could read the whole article, but it seems locked, and I don't want to pay for it.

In my country, science/research is paid by the state (tax money). In addition, much research is conducted on international basis, with various countries cooporating. Its all paid for by the tax payers of the respective countries.

I pay my tax, I expect the free science journals in return. Period.

It seems to me that authors of scientific journals are simply too lazy.

By saying this you are giving me the right to call you very stupid. Do you understand how much time and effort a researcher puts into a single paper? Obviously not, which is why you're stupid.

Why don't you just put up a counter argument (why are they only refering to the authors, and not their specific works?), instead of stooping to that level?