?

Log in

curiosity

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Progressive

Boobquake and "Skeptics"

Jen McCreight compares her Boobquake action to the homeopathy overdose by the Merseyside Skeptics Society.

First, taking an "overdose" of homeopathic remedies to protest their sale is like defiantly eating vegetables to protest PETA. It just doesn't make sense. Any homeopath will tell you that you can't overdose on homeopathic remedies, unless you are a diabetic.

Second, a "skeptic" is a person who has doubts. Someone who is certain is a fundamentalist. The Merseyside Skeptics Society are not skeptical about homeopathy, they are certain about it. They have the faith of fundamentalists.

I support the Boobquake because I support freedom against tyranny.

By demanding that women "dress modestly" to prevent earthquakes Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi wants to force his beliefs on others. By protesting the sale of homeopathic remedies the The Merseyside Skeptics Society are trying to force their beliefs on others. If you don't believe in homeopathy don't do it. No one is forcing you.

Comments

I think I'm with blaisepascal on this one. This is not a matter of fundamentalism, because we're talking about something that can be scientifically tested.

Homeopathy has been scientifically tested repeatedly and it has routinely flunked miserably.
I'm not really arguing that homeopathy should be accepted by science. I'm arguing that you can't force your beliefs on others. Freedom of belief means the freedom to believe things that other people think are false.

If you don't support the right of people to disagree with you don't support freedom at all.

I don't care about homeopathy one way of the other. But I believe in the right of people to believe in it if they want to.
The idea, that something isn't fundamentalism because it is science, is basically flawed.

Belief in the Brain
Sacred and secular ideas engage identical areas
By Allison Bond, From the March 2010 Scientific American Mind
Religious belief may seem to be a unique psychological experience, but a growing body of research shows that thinking about religion is no different from thinking about secular things­—at least from the standpoint of the brain. In the first imaging study to compare religious and nonreligious thoughts, evaluating the truth of either type of statement was found to involve the same regions of the brain.

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, used functional MRI to evaluate brain activity in 15 devout Christians and 15 nonbelievers as the volunteers assessed the truth or falsity of a series of statements, some of which were religious (“angels exist”) and others nonreligious (“Alexander the Great was a very famous military ruler”). They found that when a subject believed a statement—whether it was religious or not—activity appeared in an area called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is an area associated with emotions, rewards and self-representation.

And although the nonbelievers rejected about half of the statements the believers accepted, the brain scans of both groups were indistin­guishable, providing further proof that evaluating truth or falsity is independent of the content of the statement in question. “The fact that we found the same brain processing between believers and nonbelievers, despite the two groups’ completely different answers to the questions [about religion], is pretty surprising,” says Jonas Kaplan, a research psy­chologist at U.C.L.A. and co-author of the study. The finding adds to the mounting evidence against the notion, popular in the scientific community as well as among the general public, that religious faith is somehow different from other types of belief, explains co-author Sam Harris, also of U.C.L.A. In contrast to this assumption, he says, “Believing the sun is a star is rather the same as believing Jesus was born of a virgin.” [For more on the neuroscience of religion, see “Searching for God in the Brain,” by David Biello; Scientific American Mind, October/November 2007.]