re deep_quack's blather

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun May 17, 2015 7:56 am

i decided to separate the discussion because mlodninow's NYT article deserves its own space. in that thread, rawemotions wrote:

rawemotions wrote:I do not follow Deepak nor have heard him. But he is entitled to his views, and people can choose to ignore him. There is a big community in US who are for intelligent design. Do you call them quacks ? So why gun for Deepak alone ?
But I do want to read this guy's book. Thanks for pointing that out. I am interested in the kind of books, where great masters write books about complex topics, that explain things in a lucid manner.

Even in physics, many scientists talk about grandiose concepts like "Multi-verse" and Dark matter with a straight face, all because they have observed something that cannot be explained and have named it as such.

You cannot say "Multi-verse" is great and "Maya" is humbug, just because multi-verse was said recently.
The fact of the matter is, we still do not completely understand the source of gravity, and thus much more is left to be discovered to get a unified theory of everything.

In Ayurveda the science is based on classifying the health in three axis "Vaatha", "Pittha" and "Kapha". there is no known way to measure the quantity. But you cannot say something like that does not exist, since even today people are figuring the reasons mitochondria moves in a cell. Everybody says Carbon is present in all life forms, but do we know why a bunch of atoms starts becoming a "live being". For all you know beyond DNA something might be discovered to be three fundamental aspects of biology and they could mirror Vaatha , Pittha and Kapha.

May be with stem cell research and artificial cell synthesis, we would be closer to the truth.

1) no i do not call the intelligent design proponents quacks. i disagree with them based on what i have read, seen, thought about and concluded for myself. but at least they state what they believe as a proposition that you can agree or disagree with. but disagreement is no cause to call someone a quack. deep_quack (DQ) on the other hand just spouts nonsense. DQ's blather is in the category of what wolfgang pauli used to call not even wrong.

2) in my experience physicists and other scientists and engineers don't make up terminology to be deliberately abstruse. typically jargon serves a specific purpose, as a reference to some unusual phenomenon or object.

3) i think you are doing ayurveda a disservice by putting in the same discussion with DQ's blather. ayurveda IMO is good empirical science.

by rawemotions Mon May 18, 2015 1:12 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i decided to separate the discussion because mlodninow's NYT article deserves its own space. in that thread, rawemotions wrote:

rawemotions wrote:I do not follow Deepak nor have heard him. But he is entitled to his views, and people can choose to ignore him. There is a big community in US who are for intelligent design. Do you call them quacks ? So why gun for Deepak alone ?
But I do want to read this guy's book. Thanks for pointing that out. I am interested in the kind of books, where great masters write books about complex topics, that explain things in a lucid manner.

Even in physics, many scientists talk about grandiose concepts like "Multi-verse" and Dark matter with a straight face, all because they have observed something that cannot be explained and have named it as such.

You cannot say "Multi-verse" is great and "Maya" is humbug, just because multi-verse was said recently.
The fact of the matter is, we still do not completely understand the source of gravity, and thus much more is left to be discovered to get a unified theory of everything.

In Ayurveda the science is based on classifying the health in three axis "Vaatha", "Pittha" and "Kapha". there is no known way to measure the quantity. But you cannot say something like that does not exist, since even today people are figuring the reasons mitochondria moves in a cell. Everybody says Carbon is present in all life forms, but do we know why a bunch of atoms starts becoming a "live being". For all you know beyond DNA something might be discovered to be three fundamental aspects of biology and they could mirror Vaatha , Pittha and Kapha.

May be with stem cell research and artificial cell synthesis, we would be closer to the truth.

1) no i do not call the intelligent design proponents quacks. i disagree with them based on what i have read, seen, thought about and concluded for myself. but at least they state what they believe as a proposition that you can agree or disagree with. but disagreement is no cause to call someone a quack. deep_quack (DQ) on the other hand just spouts nonsense. DQ's blather is in the category of what wolfgang pauli used to call not even wrong.

2) in my experience physicists and other scientists and engineers don't make up terminology to be deliberately abstruse. typically jargon serves a specific purpose, as a reference to some unusual phenomenon or object.

3) i think you are doing ayurveda a disservice by putting in the same discussion with DQ's blather. ayurveda IMO is good empirical science.

Well that is your view. Many don''t think so. You need to have one yardstick for everything.

Many would say intelligent design is pure nonsense. You can't say god creating human beings starting from Adam and Eve, is correct, but Deepak's postulates of connection between Quantum theory and consciousness is wrong. I do not see any special difference between the two. Both are equally outlandish. I personally think many of these descriptions are incorrect translations from Sanskrit to English.

Many lay persons would say Physicists are non-sensical when they talk of multi-verse (a.k.a Maya). You can't say when Hindu philosophers talk of Maya it is nonsense, but when physicists talk about multi-verse it makes sense.

I am not doing any special dis-service to Ayurveda. the issue was not about the science but the practice of defining three axis of health. These are abstract and cannot be quantified. This is an undeniable fact. To a westerner if a Ayurveda doctor talks of Vaatha, Pittha and kapha , he would say they are talking nonsense.

If Deepak chooses to give new definitions for scientific terms used by physicists, then we can correct him, but it is ridiculous to claim everything he says is quackery because of some abstract connection he makes between consciousness and physics, and then refuse to acknowledge many other folks from other religions who also spout similar abstract connections between religion and science are not the same.

Actually I have no particular interest in this topic, I just find that the basis of your judgement is not sound, completely one-sided and prejudiced. I for one, do not even understand the word meta-physics.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon May 18, 2015 7:00 am

rawemotions wrote:Actually I have no particular interest in this topic, I just find that the basis of your judgement is not sound, completely one-sided and prejudiced. I for one, do not even understand the word meta-physics.

if asking for clarity in expressing one's thoughts, and at a minimum, to state them in a manner in which another reasonably intelligent person can either agree or disagree with them is completely one-sided and prejudiced, then yes i am one-sided and prejudiced.

if you have no interest in chopra, then perhaps you shouldn't have ventured your opinion. i have followed his discussions with scientists and science writers over the years and find him entirely devoid of substance.

by rawemotions Mon May 18, 2015 2:42 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
rawemotions wrote:Actually I have no particular interest in this topic, I just find that the basis of your judgement is not sound, completely one-sided and prejudiced. I for one, do not even understand the word meta-physics.

if asking for clarity in expressing one's thoughts, and at a minimum, to state them in a manner in which another reasonably intelligent person can either agree or disagree with them is completely one-sided and prejudiced, then yes i am one-sided and prejudiced.

if you have no interest in chopra, then perhaps you shouldn't have ventured your opinion. i have followed his discussions with scientists and science writers over the years and find him entirely devoid of substance.

Thank for confirming the obvious!

To claim that folks from other religions who speak on similar stuff , express themselves with clarity, is ridiculous.
So Deepak is certainly not unique in something like that. How do you know that you are qualified to even understand what he says ? So if you do not understand, just ignore and let others make their own decisions.

Calling him alone a quack but conveniently ignoring others definitely indicates a prejudiced mind. Not treating folks who speak Intelligent design at the same level, or ducking my question on Multi-verse Vs Maya just proves my point.
I am out of this topic, you can wallow in your own prejudice, but please spare us the details.

As I said earlier, it would be best for people to make their own opinion of Deepak. If they do not like they can ignore him, like countless others pontificating on the connection between religion and science.

by Sponsored content

re deep_quack's blather

re deep_quack's blather

Re: re deep_quack's blather

Re: re deep_quack's blather

Re: re deep_quack's blather

Re: re deep_quack's blather