As you may I have noticed, I rarely use scientific citations for my articles. It is not that I am anti-science. Quite the contrary. I respect the scientific method way too much to just throw it around in order to support my generic rumblings. Nonetheless, this doesn't stop smart-asses responding to the comment section with "scientific references" in a desperate attempt to make a point.
Another reason I do not use scientific references is simply because there are two (or more) issues for every topic. If you only find evidence pro or against your argument then most likely your claim is poorly researched and even more likely, bullshit. Sure, you can reference a study that supports your claim but I can reference another that contradicts it.
Neither my posts or yours are headed for dissertations or to get access to grant funding. I write posts to express ideas that are fundamentally based on critical thinking — immune to scientific citations. They can easily trash any copy-pasta link from a hasty google search because I don't target specific facts but rather anthropological expressions based on assumptions about how the world works. If your argument is based on scientific evidence then it is headed for butchering on my wall.
Without further adieu let's take some recent examples you can witness yourself. I posted an article a few days ago stating that Spiritual Drugs Are Bullshit. Hippies from around the platform gathered around and showered me with irrelevant research about how spirituals drugs help people to make connections, heal from depression and anxiety, inspire to create — you get the sentiment.
Thing is, all these findings are irrelevant since the post was about the spiritual claims these drugs supposedly induce. In order to avoid getting into misunderstandings here is the best definition I have found for this nonsensical word (spirituality) on wikipedia:
Traditionally, spirituality refers to a religious process of re-formation which "aims to recover the original shape of man," oriented at "the image of God" as exemplified by the founders and sacred texts of the religions of the world. In modern times the emphasis is on subjective experience of a sacred dimension[1] and the "deepest values and meanings by which people live,"[2][3] often in a context separate from organized religious institutions.[4] Modern spirituality typically includes a belief in a supernatural (beyond the known and observable) realm,[5] personal growth,[6] a quest for an ultimate/sacred meaning,[7] religious experience,[8] or an encounter with one's own "inner dimension."[9]
And here is a take down of this bogus word from a rational point of view:
I other words is some kind of religion 2.0. Modern generations like to think that they have escaped the crutches of religion and thus they are more "enlightened" but in reality they are in the same dark ignorant pit as before. The audacity to post scientific research about such word confirms further their own ignorance.
If you "scientific evidence" attempts to support a conglomerate of heresies that nobody agrees but everybody "vibes" then your argument will be dismantled in seconds. This is the reason that presenting any amount of "research" about generic positive effects about a vague X is non-sensical and useless.
Make sure also that your claims cannot be used for practically everything else around us. For example the same kind of "spiritual" claims about human connection, creativity, inspiration and relevant buzz words can be made for all substances including the one with the most bad rep — alcohol. Doubt it? Here, let me use my awesome google skills:
I could google another 5 pieces of research articles to debunk all the above. The point though is that no amount of research can debunk the "spiritual nature" of alcohol because "spirituality" is bullshit to begin with.
Another example that I happen to stumble upon recently is the documentary "What The Health". The guy presenting it does an awesome job in finding scientific research but he has no idea how to employ critical thinking — probably because he just wants to reaffirm his own biases. So he ends up shooting himself on the foot.
For half the duration of the documentary he is trying to convince people that meat causes cancer without bothering to pay attention to simple facts. E.g the amount of servings of meat, the kind of meat or the fact that the research he so awfully summons talks about processed meat and not any kind of meat.
I have seen the the same claims made in here from our top "open-minded" celebrity that supports the ideas of this documentary. He just happened to recently give up one "spiritual" substance (alcohol) to pick up on yet another (Ayahuasca). Sure the drug "class" is different but the end result of the effects he claims are exactly the same as with alcohol. You feel good, able to connect with the world, see things "differently — the whole "spiritual" shebang. Moreover, since bullshit travels in packs, he references this documentary as they basis for his spiritual choice. He is not the only one. Most new age westerners follow the same Tinfoil squared path thinking that they somehow discovered the truth .
"What the Health" tries to argue that meat is bad and that sugar is good. It order to do that he uses a nauseating amount of confirmation biases and quote mining from doctors that make bank from bullshit books that support an alternative point of view that is not based on science. For example the documentary spends quite some time demonizing eggs and meat for containing high levels of cholesterol when it has been repeatedly demonstrated that diet cholesterol is not associated with coronary artery disease (and no there is no contrary research to this). More or less he is overgeneralizing, trying to convince people that there is the same magic answer for everyone when each of us carries a different physiology. I am not going to continue debunking the entire documentary. You can watch this doctor do it here.
Do not use scientific references to make an argument pro or against something without first researching the entire context about the claim you are trying to support. Instead, try to tackle the issue from a critical point of view. Most of the time the people that use research as evidence have no idea how to argue properly or know how to debate the issue at hand. Amassing copy-pasta links cannot make any point other than probably re-affirm false perceptions. If you do it on my wall remember: You have the right to post any amount of research you like, relevant or irrelevant to the topic — but — it will be used against you.
I reckon part of the problem is that many people take the results of diverse scientific studies as absolute claims (event x happens all the time in every subject), instead of the highly delimited, circumstantial and restricted results that are actually being reported (event x happens sometimes in subject y when doing z).
This is also why some people throw their hands up in despair and make claims like "Science doesn't work, because every couple of months you find a study that contradicts previous findings". It is not that science doesn't work or that we cannot get any valuable knowledge from it, it is just that living systems and phenomena are way too complex to be replicated and understood under limited experimental conditions. However, looking at the pros and cons and integrating the evidence obtained so far, one can get a bettter idea of what the big picture is actually like.
Completely agree! Then you throw in a bunch of hierarchical institutions, power dynamics, individual motives and dogma and science (as a noun) begins to look a lot like a religion!
I don't think is only that. I believe most people are completely clueless. Check my latest post and the comments underneath. It is clearly a joke but people take it seriously.
https://steemit.com/health/@kyriacos/food-containing-chemicals-is-going-to-kill-you
Inconvenient truth: no one reads the references.
yeap
I dunno, I do if I'm interested in the content of the article. I try not to use wide generalizations like this...life is rarely black and white :)
You made me laugh about scientific citations, I think I've fallen in love with you, especially the post link about spitural drugs being bullshit, but there is the plesebo effect...I think psychiatric drugs are bullshit too. I'd rather shroom, I've tried both, I'm going to read your other paper about bullshit spiritual psychoactive drugs now.
I practice several types of Buddhist meditation and studied Buddhist philosophy with educated teachers that come from the Buddhist culture. The mindfulness movement and yoga have nothing to do with enlightenment, as they did in the past, but everything to do with "feel good right now" we all know feelings are transitory right? It is exhausting trying to grasp the feelgood moment or run from the feelbadmoment. It's how i react to momentary sense data that actually changes my world view...
I don't like anything that screws with my perception, which is crazy already being filtered through my conditioning and limited sense organs. So I only shroomed and smoked pot in the 70s. No permanent change in my conditioning either, there is no magic pill for that😏
Yeap, the neo-buddhist wave is heavily based on western ideas of feel good and just became popular a century ago. The mystical Ideas of yoga are just an expression of this bullshit.
Read this
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2007/03/the_hostile_new_age_takeover_of_yoga.html
Great post @kyriacos ! Glad to see there are some healthy sceptics around. Steemit really needs it...
Why seeing things differently would be spiritual shebang? Seeing world differently is in no way connected to spirituality, rather it is a skill (one has inborn, or has gained it through any given drug) to look at things from different perspective. It is actually the core of being able to think critically. This was a hate over the line imo.
Otherwise I agree with the thoughts, but they are arranged in a way too offensive text. Proving your point doesn’t have to be done by throwing insults all around you. Just saying.
I see world differently than most of us do. Then I put my glasses on and then I see the world in a pretty same way rest of us does.
I see the world like most people do. Then I join a team testing new sensor instruments for new satellites that can see much wider parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and see that things actually have a completely different colour if your eyes were sensitive enough to detect it :P
So I guess we're all seeing the world "differently" because our eyes suck :P
Actually I'm a playboy millionaire and I've replaced my eyes with high tech sensors.
That's not true thougth, but it'd be cool, as eyes really suck :D
If we become crypto-multi-milllionaires, I suggest we make a StartUp to research and build Multispectral Instrument-contact lenses. Would be freaking awesome. And freaky.
Let's make this happen!
Haha deformation should have been mentioned too:P My eyes probably don’t do an extraordinary job either. Though you ignore the point of being able to annex many points of view and contexts, thus being able to look at single percept differently.
This is actually more interesting than it should be :D
We live in a crazy, crazy world.
What does it even mean "see world differently"? Isn't that yet another bullshit statement? We are all humans with the same exact biological receptors. A drunk person or one under LSD or in Disney land will see the world differently. It's all contextual.
Offensive? Please mate. Not that bullshit excuse again. Watch this
I explained it in sentence that came right after that. Seeing stuff from different perpsectives using different contexts (thats how I percieve it).
I was not offended, its really hard to offend me. Im just saying youre aggresive. Do whatever you want with that fact.
Throwing "bullshits" is your speciality? Either you want to discuss with me and take it seriously, or we could both save some time.
water is wet and it can be humid is not an explanation. All human beings have the ability to see things differently and they almost always do. It is not a special ability and does not require substances to be accomplished.
You specifically stated that the text was offensive. A text cannot have such a quality unless someone attributes that quality.
Definitely not a "fact" pal. It is your subjective opinion about a given way of expression. Look the world up on google.
It is a rather solid word. I could use boloney and still not come as "offensive". You just happen to entertain a lit of bit of puff as I will assume from your picture and at some point you did embrace the "spiritual" part. I know, assumptions but profile pictures usually say a lot about someone else's beliefs.
Oh you bet your ass I cannot take you seriously if you continue this level of discussion. The quality of the comment depends heavily on what I see above it.
If one thinks that he’s always right then he has proven an inability to look at percept from different context and point of view. All human beings might have that ability somewhere in themselves but most struggle to do so. I NEVER said that it requires substance - that’s logical foul used against me number 1. All I said is that substance can help in order to become critical and open minded person, for I believe that those qualities are strictly associated to being able to being able to annex different perspectives/point of views and make logical output out of more than just one.
Yes of course I have imbedded the "quality of offensiveness", yet I’m not offended by it. I have it for myself to try not to step over the line myself.
You’re right I have used a wrong word. By that paragraph I meant that this is how it looks to me and do whatever you want with it. (My guess would be nothing)
I don’t know what does you calling everything bullshit have to do with me smoking pot. You assume wrongly, I have never embraced no kind of spirituality of weed at any given point. (2nd argumentation foul).
I’m interested whether saying "yes you’re right" is even in your skill set, for if not, then this can’t even be called discussion. You should work on your humbleness and ego take this as a friendly advice.
I would imagine the statement "see the world differently" is referring to ones own subjective perspective shifting. So, it's a statement to suggest that one had an experience of altered perspective that was able to give them a broader picture. It's all subjective. :)
The ability to think critically becomes even more necessary now that we find ourselves in a world awash with information.
You've inspired me to do a post!
looking forward to it.
Awesome post!
Thanks for the reminder to always think critically when presented information by people that is "scientifically" supported. Its important to put personal research into a subject before accepting it as face value by someone who is supposedly an authority figure or knowledgeable or has studied the topic. Also, as you said people often choose articles that support comfirmation bias about topics they feel strongly about vs. presenting information objectively and from multiple angles.
Yeap, thing is, it has to be repeatedly pointed to them.
You mean, its better to challenge them that their claims are based on bias?
it's better to challenge the way they are making claims. everything else collapses under that.
Ah, I see what you mean. Good point.
hahahaha
You got some great ideas!
It's been scientifically proved that the more beer you drink, the sexier that woman at the end of the bar gets.
{Not to be taken seriously}
A good one!!
great article. i really do agree with you
It reminds me of a search of citations in the Bible, to confirm yourself or refute their point of view. Because under any hypothesis, there is a phrase from the great books.
And even facts can be manipulated, to distort or to pretend, that it just wasn't there.
indeed.
@kyriacos Nice like this post voted &followed you
wish you the same @funnystuff
Allow me to quote from junior gong,
"And the world still ah fight over religion, everyone have a right to a decision."
Scientific or not, every person can perceive reality the way that makes em happy.
Nobody said they can't. In the same respect, every person can also express themselves in a way that makes them happy.
Great post! And I am hitting that follow button now!
Congratulations @kyriacos! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPHah, @kyriacos I found this pharma commercial that scientifically proves that their drug is effective.
There's no way that they could have Basketball Hall of Famer Dominique Wilkins holding a clipboard with a check mark in a box if it wasn't effective.
You will also notice that he's wearing a headset.
Now I have to go watch the other zdoggmd videos.
these ads always make me wary since they look desperate.
But the "science" is undeniable.
It's funny because I had my child's pediatrician quote the research you mention about meat causing cancer when I told her my daughter had her first hot dog ever that very day. I didn't get into it with her, but she went on to say that hot dogs are just as dangerous as smoking and that if I'm worried about spacing out vaccinations to cut down on the dose of aluminum in my son's blood, I should be more concerned about cancer causing hot dogs.
I immediately realized how full of shit she was. I also think the WHO she mentioned is full of shit on this one too, because I've read the research, and the effect of smoking cigarettes is several orders of magnitude worse than eating processed meats. Putting them in the same category is disingenuous at best. This is notwithstanding the fact that the research hadn't elucidated which exact ingredient was supposedly increasing the risk of cancer. My guess is that it's the smoke, but you know, I've been wrong before. The hot dog I gave my daughter had little or no smoke flavoring in it, so I'm not worried in the least that she's going to get cancer from it. Oh yeah, and even if it does have smoke flavoring, she's only ever had one hotdog.
Point is, just because someone is credentialed and is supposed to know what they're talking about, doesn't mean they have the critical thinking skills to do their job correctly. Our Universities are filled with a bunch of parrots, and the best parrots get the best grades, along with the most advanced degrees (with exceptions of course). Now that I've been through that system, I have very little faith in credentials any more, and I always try to look at the data for myself. There's almost always some kind of political agenda behind this garbage you hear about in the news. People blogging and commenting on blog posts are usually even worse.
You have such a beautiful figure, @kyriacos — the number of posts and comments 7777 — nothing more to write today. Only put likes. LOL :=)))))
I use references to encourage further exploration of the ideas I'm presenting. Though, I find it highly unlikely that said references will in fact be pursued, but I believe it's helpful to share context with where my thoughts were molded. Just my point of view of course :)
you need to study postmodernism. imo Peterson really does a poor job of summarization. he almost makes me angry with all the Pomo disinformation
Indeed, the research is abused so much it makes no sense to use it to many any public claim.