The Age of Ignorance - a must book

228 תגובות

1. orthodox
   I'm not surprised you don't know what science is. I am surprised you don't know what religion is….
   There is a very solid basis for science - it is called "observation". Religion is blind to reality, and you are a good example of that.

   "We will prove the truth by induction and deduction"??? Read my first sentence again …..

   Does the existence of consciousness contradict the scientific worldview? how exactly??

2. orthodox
   As a religious person, I'm surprised you don't know what religion is.
   I'm not surprised that you don't know what science is.

3. Science is a religion for everything. There is really no solid foundation for science except the religious belief that induction and deduction is truth.
   And even if we prove (which is impossible) the truth by induction and deduction, we will be left with the inability to neutralize the measurement problem that we have no idea of ​​the effect on reality.
   Another small and marginal thing is that the existence of consciousness contradicts the modern scientific world view that the world is causal.
   Therefore, according to science's view of the world, there cannot be a scientist observing the world.
   Other than that everything is fine .

4. The book "The Age of Ignorance" by Yaki Menchenfreund on the Israeli Readers' Community website:
   http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=669031

5. To all the commenters who don't feel comfortable with the mere presentation of their faith in the explicit name: idiot(!) and come to teach the writer in which way he should write, I just want to say that it's not only you who are annoyed by the fact that the truth is being thrust at you in an explosion without taking into account your primitive beliefs, I am also annoyed by the fact that in Israel of the twenty-first century, instead of seeing El Al spaceships flying weekend vacationers on the moon, I see bunches of pups dealing with issues like "an egg that was born on Yom Tov - is it permissible to eat it?"

   Long live our Lord, my father, who is not ashamed to come out against the backwardness, a buffer!

6. Cargillian:
   no reasoning. Only insults and slander

7. I have nothing to point to Michael - as mentioned, with delusions and a horrendous lack of understanding (or just poor evasion) such as yours, any further words would be a waste of precious time for nothing.

   The funny thing is that you blame me exactly for your behavior - after all, this is exactly the joke, and exactly what I said a few comments earlier (but your memory is very short, or maybe just selective) - all those areas against which the book is published, are areas that have long been known by J. Conventional medicine.

   Did I say vile? If not, then here - I say, meanness of the most despicable kind on your part - adds no honor, no glory, and no title (and certainly no wisdom).

8. Gillian:
   Since you can't argue with hallucinations - it's better to get rid of them.
   You argue with hallucinations just like a dog barks with its tail. He also does not remove his tail to bark.
   Wolfson Hospital is a normal hospital and the study is described exactly so that there is no need to guess what was in it according to the college. Do you think that when the director of Reedman College goes to the bathroom, he does so as a practice of alternative medicine?
   If you really had something to say, you could point me to something in the article that traditional medicine does not accept, but since you have nothing to say, you resort to your usual tools, which are hand waving and personal slander.

9. With hallucinations and reading things that were not and were not created - as you usually read (and this is not the first time) - I certainly have no ability to argue.

   Just for general education - Reedman College is a college for alternative medicine - no traditional medicine, and you are beyond me how even a wild imagination like yours can make a claim so unrelated to reality.

   The bottom line is that you, my father, and others like you, prove that no matter how many irrefutable proofs and evidences are brought before you, you will insist on your own, considering the sun is shining outside but you continue to claim that it is night. So who is really the fool here? Or rather, who here is the ostrich who has a problem with everything she can't do and/or wants to understand?

10. Gillian:
    Although the person who prepared the article is trying to sell his thoughts in the subtitle, the body of the article shows that it is about traditional medicine.
    Just combine traditional treatments for the body with traditional treatments for the mind.
    And by the way - the person who did this is a body from the medical establishment that based its actions - as also stated in the article - on a long series of studies.

11. My friend, I highly recommend you read the following:

    http://news.il.msn.com/israel/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148163596

    Of course, in the same breath, I highly recommend to those who are not well versed in medicine, not to criticize alternative medicine for the simple reason that it is desirable to know what they are talking about, even a little, before speaking.

12. 😉

13. She screamed:
    I didn't say anything to you.
    You simply don't understand what I'm saying and I'm already really tired of you, so just a little more - in short - and then you can continue to ramble without a response from me.
    For the thousandth time: when you talk about bad use of science you don't show the other side of science. Not even the first side. You are talking about something that does not belong to science and your very willingness to use things that do not belong to science to show the "other side" of it is going against science.
    I did not say that you are against science in general, but it is clear that when it comes to the contradiction that exists between it and some of your superstitions, then you are against it and since you have nothing bad to say about it, you try to attach bad things of others to it.
    I don't really care how you distort the word religion.
    I used this word as it means in Hebrew and the word "religion" comes to Hebrew from the Persian language and in both languages ​​it means law.

    Contrary to your claim (which of course does not slander science - ha ha!) those who advocate it believe in the religion of research and this - mercifully - despite the fact that she changes her mind from time to time - none of those who advocate the scientific method believe in any such religion and this is exactly why science can adopt conclusions news and improve. This is precisely his built-in advantage over the beliefs you raise against him.

    You allow yourself to determine what is good for the babies of their day and this is against the recommendation of those who are experts on the subject.
    What do I say and what will I speak?
    Jose Ortega y Gast was probably really Jose when he wrote The Insurrection of the Masses in 1932.
    He just predicted you!

    I don't know if you noticed, but I didn't come out in defense of circumcision.
    On the other hand, I know cases of children in Israel who were abused by their friends after it became clear that they were not circumcised.
    There are those who see this type of abuse as a greater harm than the health harm, and there are those who think that the health harm is not great at all.
    A rational person is able to discern reasons in either direction and understand that sometimes the judgment is a matter of weighing pros and cons and not a black and white decision.
    Of course this is true only for a rational person.

    You did try to deal with issues that cannot be described verbally, but if you agree now that there is nothing to deal with here, it is legal.

14. Michael,

    You are welcome to re-read all my posts starting with the first, to prove that I did not argue against science in all of them. Already in the first message I mentioned that science contributes its part and that it is essential for a balanced society.
    Pointing out the facts that there are two sides to the coin, that the big picture must be seen, and that there are negative side effects to the positive achievements of science is not judging.
    The introduction of the element of judgment came up in your response. What is not clear here? (This is not the first time you put words in my mouth. Thanks, but I don't need your help to express myself).

    When I say religion, I do not mean recognized religious institutions, but rather a spiritual aspect of life that is not related to one dogmatic system or another. Terminology.
    The camel does not see its own hump, this is also true for those who "believe" in the religion of "research" which often changes its findings, conclusions and recommendations.

    You think I'm wrong in not vaccinating newborn babies, and I think a person is wrong in bombarding a newborn's body with the vaccines recommended by the Ministry of Health. It has nothing to do with disciplines and religions. I vaccinate my children selectively at the age of one year plus, because I think it's more correct based on a synthesis of inputs.
    Please leave it to me to decide what is responsible for my children and what is not, I thank you very much.
    Not responsible for the environment? You made me laugh. The environment is inoculated, isn't it? so whats the problem?
    I think that there are diseases that it is important for the child to get sick with in childhood. A disease that as a child can be overcome relatively easily and receive a natural vaccine, can be very dangerous as an adult. Not for nothing are they called childhood diseases. Of course, this is not about any disease. As I already mentioned before "each case on its own merits".
    Also, I think it's absolutely ludicrous to cut healthy, functioning skin tissue from the genitals of a one-day-old male baby, but I'm sure you'll pull me some African study that claims removing the foreskin reduces the chance of AIDS, won't you? This is an example of narrow-minded research that unfortunately many people I know cling to. (We probably won't agree on the definition of "narrow view" either).
    If you want an example of irresponsibility towards children, it is the exposure to unnecessary risks and complications in the covenant ceremony, not to mention the irreversible damage inflicted on the limb.
    The question whether you think there are no subjects that cannot be described verbally was rhetorical. There is no need to open it up for discussion and I did not try to "engage" with them.

    So in summary, what did we have there:
    - We agree that science and research are important for discovering facts.
    - We agree that science is not always accurate, and that it develops and progresses (and therefore changes).
    - We agree that there are those who use the findings of science in a negative way.
    - We do not agree about the importance to be given to the facts and findings of science. You are an ardent follower of the findings of science (for example, trusting the Ministry of Health on the issue of vaccines with your eyes closed), and I am not. And that leads to the next point…
    - We will probably not agree on a narrow view definition in the definition and research findings.
    - We will probably disagree on the issue of the contributions of alternative holistic approaches that see a person as a whole of body, mind and soul which we have not really discussed, but I have a feeling that such a discussion would be a waste of time and energy.

    You say tomato, and I say tomato.... The main thing is that we be healthy, whole and happy.

15. She screamed:
    In my opinion, it is you who did not understand my words and not the other way around.
    I did not ignore your words that I agree with you. It's simple (and maybe strange?) I don't usually argue about things I agree with you.
    That's why I responded only to those of your words that I don't accept.
    When you say "narrow-minded studies are bad science" you are of course saying the right thing. Studies that make calculations with errors are also bad science. Cooking without the necessary ingredients is also bad cooking. Why should we talk about it?
    The fact that everything has positive and negative uses was brought up by us in response to your attempt (***you!!!***) to judge science by the use made of its fruits.
    We told you that it is an irrelevant judgment because it does not judge science.
    Of course, we cannot guarantee that he will not misuse this or that knowledge and we have demonstrated this in many ways.
    Are you arguing with us because you agree with us on this point?
    You should get used to stopping debating on a subject in which you have become convinced and if you have become convinced that it is not right to judge science based on the use people make of its fruits, it is enough for you to say "sorry, I was wrong and thank you for the clarification".

    In my opinion - when you make decisions contrary to scientific knowledge, you are wrong.
    The scientific theories - to remind you - are the ones that have been tested. In contrast, the "alternative" theories are the ones that have not been tested. What logic is there in preferring a tested and confirmed theory over a theory that has been disproved or has never been tested?

    I didn't just say that most of the misuses that people make of the fruits of science (or anything else) are done by the disciplines that compete with science for representing the truth.
    Most of these disciplines are religions and as such they (unlike science) not only make claims (mostly false) about reality but also command you to act in a certain way (and remind you again - science does not command you to do anything). A course of action that the religion commands you to take is arbitrary and determined by the founders of the religion to serve their purposes.
    This course of action can lead you to suicide attacks (one of the uses of dynamite), to the use of an atomic bomb (as the Taliban promise us recently), or to pathetic attempts to base the race theory of the Nazi religion on evolution.

    I do not know your acquaintance and in light of your words I do not believe that our judgment regarding the question "who is a rationalist" is similar.
    I don't think there is any accepted rationalist approach on the subject of the word. In fact, only religion has a defined approach on the subject and for those who are not religious (and the rationalists are not religious) all that is left is to hesitate and decide according to the degree of importance they attach to various issues.
    Regarding vaccines, on the other hand, there is a rational approach and it is expressed in the instructions of the Ministry of Health.
    Those who do not vaccinate their children with the vaccine recommended by the Ministry of Health are acting irresponsibly towards both their children and those around them.
    It is true that since most people act logically on this subject, even those who do not act according to the guidelines can make a mistake and think that the fact that their children did not contract the disease is due to something they did right and not from the simple reason that their neighbors did get vaccinated and therefore the children had no one to catch the disease from. This is where the parasitic side of this behavior comes into play.

    I do not claim that subjects that cannot be described verbally do not exist.
    Read my words again.
    I argue that your very attempt to engage with them on a website that is all words makes no sense.
    How do you want to convince (with words) someone that a certain action that cannot be described in words is an action that they should do?
    He has no way of knowing what you are talking about.

    I allow myself to guess (but it's only a guess) that his situation in this matter will not be worse than yours, but since it is impossible to talk about it, there is also nothing to argue about.

16. Noam, Michael
    You have not reached the end of my mind. You elegantly ignored that I mentioned that I support science and claim that there is a contribution to humanity (selective reading?).
    I mentioned that there is bad science (studies with a narrow vision are, for me, bad science, because the practical conclusions derived from them are incorrect), and there are negative effects of good science. Noam, it's probably a matter of terminology. In my opinion, problematic research is bad science.
    It is clear that a fact is a fact, and an object is an object, and that the attribution of the negative or positive use is in the hands of man,
    But make no mistake - it has been and will be used negatively, this is human nature.
    Can you determine whether dynamite helped or harmed humanity more? This is a relative statement. Noam, you say exactly what I claim - there are two sides to the coin and we do not disagree. This is a sub-issue and not the focus of the discussion.

    Michael,
    To your question, I do indeed make decisions in which I take the scientific facts with a limited guarantee. (Not all of them, of course, but I do not accept the scientific studies that have been accepted in the scientific community as Chinese dogma 🙂
    For example, the decisions I made regarding the word and vaccines for my children are indeed different from the decisions of rationalist acquaintances around me, and closer to the decisions of acquaintances who are close to alternative-holistic issues.
    In other subjects it can be reversed. Case by case.
    Your claim that the negative use of the fruits of science is mainly in the hands of the disciplines that compete with science is unclear and not so true. As mentioned, this is human nature, always has been and probably always will be.
    Negative usage is done by completely rationalistic people.
    What is the connection between the matter of "the desire to engage" in issues that cannot be described in words and their existence. Are you saying there aren't any? I don't want to deal or not deal with the subject... (!?) And you will be surprised what I can deal with other people.
    I did not try to attribute to science features that do not exist in it, you did that in your response to me (it's strange that I have to write this).
    I repeat and emphasize, we need a balance between religion and science. It is not a contradiction, but a complement, the physical and the metaphysical.
    The disagreement between us is not a matter of principle (I do not underestimate science) but more of a question of dosage and balance.
    (I hope you won't read my comments selectively like last time)

17. By the way, Noam, since you asked so many questions, I have one question related to your questions: Do you have the possibility to send us links regarding the concept: 'ZONE'?..

18. Lenaam:) What do you think about autodidactics?

19. Michael: Who said you are? Live for yourself.

20. Hugin:
    I'm not the one who has to substantiate your words

21. Hugin,

    I carefully read your response (206), but I did not understand point number:

    1) According to quantum theory, does the primal unconscious struggle with the energies from Mercury?
    2) How does all this relate to the Bermuda Triangle?
    3) Is this related to the 'fallen' returning? if so how?
    4) Where do you harness the horse?

    I hope you will clarify the above issues

    An avid fan

22. To be more precise: not based on you, dear Michael: you haven't reached your peak yet. :)

23. Hugin:
    In conclusion - you did not say anything true and well-founded

24. 'The Age of Ignorance' or perhaps the 'Robot Age'?
    Noam: A special systematic gift for you:
    N-E-M = 50 + 70 + 40 = 160 = 10 degrees on the zodiac wheel in Virgo, between the primary decile controlled by thought (Mercurian-creeping) or 'hermetically channeling' and between the influence of the upper decile-Capricorn (Rum Sky-Kham The Jew) ruled by the Saturns/Saturn-Saturn = disables in order to praise or also rule: in order to preserve world order from the beginning to the end of everything.
    Formatted by 'name' or 'word' as this "systematic" pronunciation indicates:
    A. A special attraction to details and practical meticulousness, in practice.
    B. Acute criticality and a tireless need for order, method, cleanliness, hygiene, perfectionistic functioning, need for purification - extreme situations - compulsiveness.
    C. On the unconscious side, reflected on the other side, a primal fear of clouding senses and swallowing into the source of the soul of the universe (the fish-carriers of the 'righteousness' (Zeus = Upper and lower Jewish) which symbolizes and indicates the totality of the 'destiny' that ultimately everyone We are drawn to him as the eternal God.
    This is in essence:
    If you understood the "principle" you can now analyze every "rudder here" and situation, as long as you are well versed in comprehensive and meticulous knowledge in the world of symbols and archetypes.
    Warning: 1) It is also desirable to remember that many trees (individuals) sometimes do not see the whole forest.
    2) "Sanctify the Lord":) and see the laughter of fate:..."And let Jehovah (Jehovah-will-it-be-done) be pleased with us, and the work of our hands will be established over us, and the work of our hands will be established:". Good morning by all the ever-virtues
    'Ignorance' is the matter in the eyes of the truly beholder! and between the blind groping, the guesser who finally comes to reason only by many and cumbersome turns in many and convoluted masks. (According to the law: the fate of a rogue...

25. She screamed:
    Regarding the role of science and the fact that it has nothing to do with the use that is made of its cows, Noam answered you.
    I only have to add as a summary what I always say over and over again - science is the tool we use to study reality and discover the laws that govern it. The use people make of this knowledge is not part of science.

    The truth is also that the negative use of the fruits of science is usually motivated precisely by the disciplines that see fit to compete with science for the truth of the unfounded knowledge with which they wash the heads of their believers.

    The discoveries of science - like any tool - can be used for good or bad - just like the head, hands and a motor boat.

    The vast majority of knowledge gained through science is highly reliable and it's no wonder people don't hesitate to get on a plane.
    There is a tiny percentage of this knowledge that is wrong or inaccurate.
    I repeat and ask you - if you have to make a decision today - will you base yourself on knowledge that is mostly accurate and a tiny percentage of it is wrong or would you prefer to base yourself on knowledge that is mostly wrong and what is left of it has never been tested and is therefore unreliable.

    If you want to deal with things that words are not suitable for describing, it is better not to try to do it through an internet talkback that has nothing but words.
    Even in a normal conversation with people you cannot engage with him and I am unsure if there is any way in which you can engage with him.
    In any case, it is clear that your words on this matter here are irrelevant.

26. her scream,

    It seems to me that you are confused.

    There is no good science and no bad science, science is not intended to cause happiness or sorrow,
    Science as a whole is designed to discover the truth and expand human knowledge, and it does this with dizzying success, much better than any other method.

    All the other things you mentioned are related to the question of what ** we do ** with the information obtained with the help of science.
    Cars kill thousands of people every day - is a car a bad thing???
    Dynamite is used for quarrying, as well as for bombs - is dynamite a bad thing or a good thing???

    Science in itself is not meant to promote happiness, although it can make people happier (and sadder).

    This is not a matter of "throwing the baby out with the bath water", but of "using" everything properly:
    For example, if you try to make physical discoveries with the help of religion or politics -
    You will fail big.

    This is the big picture, and there is no need to get confused and attribute to science properties that do not exist in it, and it never claimed to do so.

27. Michael:
    I do not slander science (and try not to slander life in general).
    There are things that are beyond information, knowledge, beyond perception, sensations and beyond thought.
    There are experiences and beings that are beyond words (in any language). For example in the case of internal "insights" that cannot necessarily be transcribed.
    (There was once a famous dancer who was asked about a lovely dance she choreographed, and she replied, If I could talk about it, I wouldn't have to dance it)

    And even with the limitations of the mind, as a tool for identifying reliable information only, science can be problematic because it is not accurate at a given moment. For a person who needs to make a decision today, it doesn't help that science gets rid of the "nonsense" in the end. This end may be too late for him.
    I don't "believe" what people tell me, even when it comes to religious people, and also when it comes to people of science.
    I try to synthesize what people say and see the big picture... then a kind of insight into the subject is formed within me. It can be consistent with the argument of this or that scientist, and it can be inconsistent with the argument.
    FYI, I believe that in any case it should be scientifically investigated as much as possible, and I would very much like to see a thorough scientific study of the evolution of the various religions (as Professor Daniel Dent suggests).
    This does not contradict everything I have written so far, because the very investigation is positive.

28. Science and scientific method are the same in the aspects I refer to.
    As mentioned, I mentioned that there is good science, and I do not ignore the contributions of science (the scientific method) to our lives, but it must be remembered that everything is like a coin and has two sides. Everything that contributed on the one hand, brought with it its own problems on the other hand.
    Examples:
    - The invention of dynamite... (pretty obvious)
    - An increase in life expectancy creates a population split and an imbalance in the world economy (pensions)...
    -Many technological improvements have only increased the level of STRESS in the average person's life, even though logic says it should be the other way around (I invite you to read the article "Praising Idleness" by Bernard Russell).
    And there are many more examples. You should always see the big picture.
    (Besides, you state yourself that at any given moment there are bad patients in science).

    And we again return to the definition of the word "success".
    Science does not promote happiness.
    The philosophy of religion (etc.) is closer to achieving this "success" than science.
    Now the question arises, which is better, a more advanced and less happy society, or a less advanced but happier society?
    In a balanced society, in my opinion, you need a correct balance between science, religion, art and correct politics (as Plato defined the term).
    There is no real contradiction between us. I'm simply trying to sharpen all the rationalists (those for whom science is their religion), ask them to throw the baby out with the bath water on one hand (and indeed there is quite a bit of "water", especially in Israel, where every good piece of every field is traded), and to see the big picture on the other hand (there is bad science, and there are also negative side effects to good science).

29. She screamed:
    Science eventually gets rid of all the nonsense.
    Sometimes it takes a while but it always happens.
    We have no other method of identifying reliable knowledge.
    In other words - there is really only one tool in our toolbox that enables the identification of reliable information and that tool is science.
    Science deals with information and therefore the expression "everything looks like nails" is translated according to the parable to "everything looks like information".
    Well? It's not like you use science, for example, to digest.
    You are really using it to identify reliable information so there is no problem here.

    In conclusion, you can slander science as much as you want but the question is whether that is a reason to believe what people just tell you without having activated any mechanism to identify reliable information.

30. her scream,

    I think you are wrong when you refer to "science" and not to the "scientific method"

    Science rests on the scientific method, and it is the one that guarantees ** that over time ** erroneous, tautological and charlatan theories will be swept away from science.

    It is clear that at any given moment, science has each of the aforementioned evils, but in the end, the scientific method causes the wonderful success of science, and no other method even comes close to its successes.

31. There is something in what you claim. Like the same study that "discovered" that people who run more are healthier. The reason is, of course, that healthy people can run more than unhealthy people.

32. Avi,
    I would like to clarify a point.
    I know that science operates a "nonsense filtering system" which is a good and positive thing for self-examination, if only to filter out the element of randomness, or alternatively to minimize the effect of the measurement tools.
    Still, this system is sometimes within the fringes of the narrow vision I mentioned.
    As mentioned as an example, you can scientifically "prove" (including activating the system to filter nonsense) that removing the foreskin is beneficial to health when you see things from a narrow scientific point of view, and this is indeed what these and other studies published in PubMed indicate. This is of course not true in my opinion. There are other examples.
    Especially in the medical field, different doctors have different opinions, sometimes contradictory, and everyone has research evidence for their doctorate... science is not necessarily accurate.
    Sometimes when the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails. More than once, when a scientist from a certain field set himself a research goal, he reached certain conclusions mainly related to H-W-M-F even after sifting through the nonsense (one of the reasons for the lack of broad vision).
    As mentioned, for me there is good science and there is bad science (such as the foreskin).
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of religion, but I take everything with a limited grain of salt, even conventional science, which may contradict itself every few years. (Of course this does not include obvious facts such as the fact that the earth is round....)

33. to her scream.
    Science operates what Carl Sagan calls a "nonsense filtering system" and therefore by definition it cannot contain tautologies. True, there are fraudsters, but when they are caught they pay the full severity of the law, in contrast to the non-scientific fields such as religion or mysticism where the schtatologists are the vast majority (and the few others, just innocents who were tempted by this nonsense in the absence of access to real science).

34. Life expectancy increased mainly due to improved hygiene and improved nutrition.
    Science certainly contributed its part, but for the main improvement in life expectancy, advanced science was not necessarily needed.
    Science is essential to a balanced society, but does not contradict a spiritual dimension that cannot be grasped with scientific tools for a rationalist mind.
    In every field there are charlatans and just plain wrong. Also in science.
    The division is not: good science, holistic alternative (hereafter religion) bad.
    The division is: there is good science and there is bad science; There is good religion and there is bad religion.
    There are tautologists in both science and religion.
    I would not be bound by statements about it being proven so, or proven otherwise. From my experience in life, many of the proofs given to me were made from a narrow view (a small example, the medical evidence for cutting the foreskin).

35. I recommend reading the book by the writer Ayyan Haris Ali, "Apostate". This is an amazing factual document that can predict the future of our conflict with the Arab Muslim world. Unfortunately the politicians will not read it.

36. scientist!!:
    May I know what kind of scientist you are trying to impersonate?
    Since I am not sure you will understand the question in this way I will elaborate more:
    Do you want us to be confused and think you are:
    a physicist?
    a biologist?
    astronomer?
    chemist?
    ecologist?
    Brain researcher?
    Other? individual___________________________________________

37. What to do - that's the truth.
    You can accept it or deny it, your vanities will not change reality

    All the best.

38. "Scientist", as fascinating as the UFO stories may be, it does not seem to me that the Nobel Prize Committee for Literature will choose to honor the science fiction genre in the near future.

39. Stop associating UFOs with pseudo-science, this issue is real and exists. Your cries are pathetic, the truth is that UFO scientists will receive a Nobel Prize in the future, I wonder what you will say then.
    There are extraterrestrials. Your arrogant statements are pathetic.

40. Yaara has no control over the ads that Google provides, and its engine does perform its job, searching for keywords and trying to match them with the advertisements. The fact that the article opposes the phenomenon and the advertisements support it, is probably beyond the power of an automatic engine.

41. Pay attention to the advertisements below the article!! "Your date reveals everything" etc...

    I know doctors who go to alternative healers

    I am a biology teacher and as much as I teach - I cannot root out superstitions. Nothing helps me!

42. Hanan (183): The book is also available in a free version for reading at: http://ageofignorance.co.il/
    You could save the money and buy a life instead.
    Second, as a person who claims to understand the software (including your partner) it is strange that in order to read your site you have to go through a registration process at the end of which no email is sent, but an error message is received that the server is unable to send an email.
    Third, I already wrote my review of the book elsewhere so let me quote:
    "I have read chapters 1,2,5,7 so far [note: since posting this comment I have read the entire book]. I must say that my starting point is the author's fallacy-skepticism. I agree with his conclusions even though the way is wrong in my opinion.
    The main problem I discovered in the book is superficiality. It is impossible to fit so much into so little, and therefore one can fall into one of two pitfalls: condensing a lot of information, some of which is for those who know Han (who don't need such a book anyway) or skimming wildly over the topics in an irresponsible manner. Unfortunately, the author manages to fall for both, even though there is apparently a contradiction.

    The editing of the book is lacking:

    Lots of short sentences that require additional explanation or a suitable reference or that are only an introduction to an entire topic. Again, superficiality.
    The bibliographic list is severely lacking. Most of it consists of popular literature. Not that I have anything against popular science fiction, some of it can be excellent, but it seems that in a large part of the topics, the author didn't really dig deep enough and there are signs of too much similarity to some of the sources (at least in chapter 5, where I have more knowledge than the average person).
    In the chapter on evolution (chapter 5) there is too much discussion about Darwin and his writings. Which is nice, but "The Origin of Species" was published in 1849. Since then, several tens or hundreds of thousands of articles and studies have been written that updated Darwin. Of course, like many others who hold this common mistake, he calls the theory "the theory of evolution" when in fact it is the theory of "natural selection". Evolution is a fact that was already known in Darwin's day (although it was called by other names). A number of alternative theories were put forward even before Darwin, but they were proven wrong (for example, for Marxism - change by necessity. The giraffe's neck got longer because it needed a longer neck).
    There is a slide (chapter 5) for irrelevant matters: the whole section about Menachem Ben should not be there.
    lacks a glossary. Not everyone knows what "sympathetic magic" is.
    I don't understand what need the book comes to answer. Quite a few books have been written about one of the topics he deals with, which contain more information and more learning sources. It can't be that the chapter on graphology is only 10 pages long. There is much more to write about this charlatanism.

    Luckily the book is free to read online. If I had bought it I would have been disappointed (-8
    "

43. When Raanan spoke at the time about money as a measure of intelligence, it really tickled my fingers to bring up Sherry Arison as a counter example.
    I held back but this news broke my restraint.

44. I saw on TV and was shocked.

45. For those who haven't read the article yet: Sherry Arison: "I receive messages straight from above.

    http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000459823&fid=2173

46. Hanan,
    The most I was willing to do to read your challenge to the rationale was one click. The link leads to registration on the website. This is already too much for me. Post your rebuke here, if you wish.
    In my opinion, your beliefs in UFOs are a waste of much more than 70 NIS. It's a waste of time (and certainly money) in the pseudo-scientific bin.

    All the best.

47. Well - I purchased the book (or rather a booklet) and my response is detailed for those who are interested in making an effort and reaching it:

    http://www.eura.org.il/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=6687&sid=59445a1fcd45ca617ccb93af232e50be#6687

    For those who find it too much of a hassle, feel free to purchase the book and enjoy, like me, the throwing of about 70 NIS in the trash...

48. Shalahbat Moriah,

    If what is written in the book of Genesis does not need proof, where is the confidence that it is the truth?
    Do you think the world was created only about 6000 years ago?

49. Wow wow look what happens here when I'm not in the field.
    Avi Blizovsky, there are several comments or bunches of comments here (especially Michael R's) that can be summarized into articles on their own...

50. As things currently stand, the Cameroonians will not develop resistance to AIDS any more than they will develop resistance to lightning.
    In other words - all the Cameroonians who remain will be resistant to AIDS for the simple reason that their number will be zero.
    Be that as it may, the debate here is simply stupid because even the things that are presented as "advantages" of the faith are actually its disadvantages.
    As I said - the person is the platform on which the group of memes survives.
    One of its ways is to cater to an irresponsible demographic.
    It may perhaps fit in with the good of the genes (depending on the circumstances) but we - as we know - are not the genes.
    We are creatures who want to live comfortably without coercion and without crazy acts of murder.
    We also want to have all the means to take care of our well-being and not live in poverty and ignorance as all religious populations live.
    Therefore - it is really possible that the religious populations will increase due to demographics and that the last remnants of sanity will disappear from the face of the earth, but this will be to the detriment of all humans and the only factor that will benefit from this will be that group of memes.

51. fresh,
    There is no reason for the Cameroonians to develop resistance to AIDS, in an evolutionary process.
    A. The Cameroonians are not an isolated population, and alleles ("versions" of genes) vulnerable to AIDS will always enter them from the outside population.
    B. The "resistant" Cameroonian allele will also be rolled out to the rest of the human population.
    third. The virus undergoes evolution on its own, and it is likely that one or another of its mutations will overcome the resistance of the Cameroonian allele.
    d. The virus undergoes a much faster evolution than the Cameroonians, even if their generation duration is 12 years. The virus multiplies much faster. There is no way a eukaryote would beat a virus in a simple evolutionary race. For each resistant allele in the Cameroons, generations upon generations will pass in the virus.

52. my father

    It is true that this is a big blow, but on the other hand (and I do not encourage this) the Cameroonian population will enjoy in the long term natural immunity against AIDS, which is actually not bad considering that the other nations will depend on technology that is not certain to exist in the future, i.e. factories for condoms, medicines, etc. In other words, it is not certain that civilization as we know it today will continue to exist even in the near future and then there will be neither industry nor medicine, and then the affluent Cameroonian DNA against AIDS will be a sought-after commodity...

53. fresh:
    The statement is not stupid and it stems from reality.
    What is stupid and insolent is your response that does not deserve further consideration

54. Fresh, a very simple example. Before his visit to Israel, the Holy Father visited Cameroon in Africa and before his visit there he criticized the requirement to distribute contraceptives to the residents of that African Catholic country. He claimed that they do not prevent AIDS even though it has been proven that they do, in this way many Cameroonians who believe in him will start to have unprotected sex and get infected. There is no greater harm than this.

55. Where is the stupid assertion that religion is harmful to its believers? And what is the definition of harm anyway? In the meantime, the religious currents of all religions are evolutionarily successful (high birth rate) much more than Western secularists who make a child + a dog.

56. Ohad:
    What a strange idea!
    Because Pinker studied the brain he understands the mathematics of evolution?
    I tell you as a mathematician that randomness has no importance!
    What is important is that there is a probability of change and if this change is not created randomly (and by the way - even in evolution it is not random in the full sense of the word because there is always a reason for change that we call random only because we have no ability to predict it but if a gene changes as a result of a cosmic ray being struck then it not random because there is a reason for it) but in another way - it's really not important.
    Beyond that - the entire mechanism of change - whether random or not - is of course intended to explain change and development.
    When it comes to religious memes - even this is not important because the whole function of this collection of memes is to preserve itself ***without change!!!***

    Religion is harmful to its believers, but most religions try to harm those who do not believe even more.
    It is something like the man who loved his neighbor so much that when an angel came and told him that he would give him whatever he asked for but he should know that his neighbor would get twice as much, he asked the angel to take out one of his eyes.
    Therefore, every person on earth suffers both from the damage caused by his religion and from the damage caused by other religions.

57. Contact your confidant: C.M.
    As far as I'm concerned: this site in particular is a deserted no man's land at this point.

58. I have already said that I do not necessarily disagree with the view that sees religion as a harmful idea for its believers (although I personally doubt this), but with the claim that its validity can be scientifically disproved. If it is not possible to "prove" anything about reality, but at most to propose a thesis with a high degree of plausibility as to its mode of operation, it is certainly not possible to do so with regard to what is in its definition outside of it.

    In relation to memes, I think Pinker would have disagreed with the claim that "it is not important at all what the mechanism is that creates the changes" given the fact that he devoted his entire professional life to the study of this mechanism, i.e. the cognitive mode of operation. Pinker does not dispute the very fact that memes may provide a good description of how ideas spread in society.

59. Ohad:
    You simply ignore the main point and choose to waste time on irrelevant issues.
    There are people - and it turns out that Pinker is among them - who enjoy building their name on trying to dwarf others.
    It reminds me of someone who served at the same time as me in the army.
    We both served in key positions in the unit and many times both of us were required to give speeches at various events - in particular farewell events for soldiers and officers who had finished serving.
    This officer used to let me speak first and then open his words with the sentence "contrary to what Michael said" and continue with things that have nothing to do with what I said (because it was impossible to say things that were contrary to what I said and yet true).
    Pinker reminds me a bit of him.
    The idea behind memes is not that they undergo random changes.
    The random change is also not really important for evolution and if you are looking for historical evidence you should know that Darwin also believed in the Marxian approach and did not at all rule out the inheritance of acquired traits.
    What is important for evolution to happen is the possibility of change and the existence of natural selection. It doesn't matter at all what the mechanism is that creates the changes, but that's exactly what Pinker chose to make Tsimas.
    What is important - in addition to this - is the influence of the environment and in particular the influence of other memes in that environment.
    I explained to you exactly how it works in the case of religion, but you are more comfortable quoting irrelevant things instead of dealing with the things I brought up.

    Hugin:
    If you are not a real woman - let it be

60. Michael, let everyone know if you are not a real life person.
    For questions and clarifications: C.M

61. Regarding freezing in front of a snake, I think it is already a case of autonomous behavior of the nervous system and not of a "meme".

    The freezing reaction is not an "idea" that succeeds in replicating itself in human culture, just as the movement of the leg after tapping the kneecap is not such an idea.

62. Certainly certain ideas have their origin in the random modification of ideas that preceded them, which turned out to be more successful, but it would be ridiculous to claim that the theory of relativity, Platonic philosophy, or the Declaration of Independence of the United States were created in this way, or that such a mechanism has the power to teach us anything about how The workings of the creative mind.

63. And regarding the usefulness of the "negative" meme - definitely not true - think of a case where you encountered a snake - the immediate reaction is to freeze in place out of fear (for a large part of the people), and this has no benefit, not even mentally (I purposely do not write 'mentally' or ' psychologically').

64. "A complex meme does not grow from the accumulation of copying errors. It originates from the fact that someone devotes himself to work, shakes his brain, mobilizes his sharpness, and composes or writes or draws or invents something." - Inaccurate: How many times is a mistake or confusion (mutation) in the expression of a certain meme turned into another successful (evolutionary) meme (for example, as in the sketch of the pale tracker - which, although this name is planned, provides an example of my intention, when a similar thing happens in life - instead of saying The Sixth Fleet' mistakenly saying 'The Shi Tzitzi')...

65. Yigal, even if the mechanisms were developed for purposes that no longer exist, acting according to their orders gives a person mental well-being, as in the case of surrendering to any other impulse. It is quite possible that this well-being is momentary and insufficient, while the suffering caused by it is continuous, such as, for example, in obsessive behavior, but this does not deny the very benefit.

    Michael, you may not have based your claims on a comparison between genes and memes, but this is certainly the main comparison that Dawkins makes in the chapter on the selfish gene that deals with memes, in order to explain the idea that they exist primarily for their own sake.

    I think that the research in the field is not progressing also due to the inherent inability of the theory to provide us with insight into the question of how new ideas come into the world, beyond the self-evident statement that they are influenced by ideas that preceded them.

    I will quote in this regard Steven Pinker in his book How the Brain Works (p. 188):
    "Dawkins himself used the analogy to illustrate how well natural selection is for anything that can replicate, not just DNA. Others treat it as a true theory of cultural evolution. Taken simply, this analogy predicts that social evolution will turn out to work in the following way. A meme pushes its subject to its transmission, and it mutates in a certain recipient: a sound, word or phrase receives a random change [...] I think you will agree that this is not the way cultural change works. A complex meme does not grow from the accumulation of copying errors. It originates from someone devoting himself to work, racking his brain, mobilizing his sharpness, and composing or writing or drawing or inventing something. There is no doubt that the creator is influenced more than once by the ideas floating in the air, and it is possible that he polishes draft after draft, but none of these progressions is similar to natural selection […] The added value of each round comes from the focus of brain power on improving the product, not from retelling or re-copying hundreds of thousands Sometimes in the hope that some of the disruptions or distortions will turn out to be useful [...] There is no doubt that the cultural revolution is not an exact copy of the Darwinian version. In cultural evolution, mutations are directed and acquired characteristics are inherited. Lamarck, even if he was wrong about biological evolution, proved right about cultural evolution […] Models of cultural transmission shed light on other hallmarks of cultural change, especially the demographics of such changes—how memes can become popular or unpopular. But the analogy is drawn from epidemiology more than evolution: ideas as infectious diseases that cause epidemics, not as genes conferring advantages that cause adaptations. Before us is an explanation of how ideas become popular, but not where ideas come from."

66. In addition, I did not try to reduce religion to a collection of obsessive actions, but only to give them direction. In addition to memes, religion also has deep goals (and not so positive ones, like for example controlling people). However, the concept of God is certainly a very widespread meme.

67. Fan,
    Many of the brain mechanisms that operate in us were developed in the distant past and for purposes that do not exist (protection against predators, for example) and hence their usefulness lies in these purposes. The "negative" memes that do not bring benefit are based on these mechanisms and currently do not bring any benefit to those who "suffer" from them.

68. Hugin:
    Enchanting someone according to his way refers to the way of initiation and not its contents.
    All of your words throughout the various responses (and therefore I assume also the book whose sales you are trying to promote), suggest contents that if filled with human heads they would collapse under the atmospheric pressure because even the skull bone is not strong enough to bear the pressure of the atmosphere when there is a complete vacuum inside.

69. Ohad:
    The research is not progressing because it seems that any progress beyond what is already known will be very difficult when the fruits of the idea can be harvested already.
    Weather forecasting began to develop only recently - when the high-speed computers were developed, but it doesn't seem to me that anyone would have dared - even before - to deny the existence of the weather. Knows what? Nor did anyone dare to do this before they found out that PV = NRT.
    The existence of memes is so obvious and so good at showing the subtleties of religion that followers of religions find it appropriate to invent all kinds of excuses to minimize its influence.

    I did not base my claims on a comparison between a garden and a meme.
    This comparison is just to help you understand the concept.
    I did explain (in detail - including examples!) how the religion's collection of memes achieves its survival goal.
    It seems to me that I did not mention in my previous response a very important meme in the preservation of religion which is the meme of the next world.
    This meme helps her survive even with someone who is sure that even though his neighbors believe in the religion he wants to leave, he will manage to elude them and prevent them from murdering him when he does.
    Do you think winning heaven or avoiding hell is not profit?
    For those who believe in the myth of the next world, they are clearly a gain, but it is not an evolutionary gain but an illusionary gain.
    To win this profit people are even willing to commit suicide attacks.
    The so-called "one adaptive advantage!"

70. Yigal, most psychological theories would argue that even irrational fear or obsessive thought has a "benefit", in the sense that it symbolizes a deeper fear, or prevents the person from having to deal with it.

    Even if you don't accept this explanation, I think it is necessary to distinguish between an involuntary thought and a central belief system by which a person chooses to define himself. Reducing the entire religion to a collection of obsessive actions also seems a bit simplistic to me. Belief in God or the existence of the soul can exist by itself without being accompanied by any rituals, and for most people who hold this "meme" it was difficult to find repetitive behavior that directly stems from it.

71. A fan (151) - a meme has existence even if it does not bring any benefit, for example a melody that "sticks" to you and you cannot get rid of it or bad (self) thoughts, fears and concerns.

    And as for 142, religion is not a meme, it is a collection of memes that thrive well in a certain environment of memes (from Dawkins' ideas). For example, the idea of ​​the crucifixion of Jesus is a meme that thrives well in the environment of the Christian religion. The idea of ​​circumcision thrives in Judaism and so on. One of the central ideas underlying many memes is the idea of ​​performing actions repeatedly. This behavior already exists in animals (for example, the hardon's return to a fixed order of actions every day, and you can find countless other similes). The idea is translated in the meme collections called religions into endless repetitions about prayers at fixed times, about holidays at fixed times of the year, etc. Another idea that originates from animals and is adopted by religions is the linking of situations that have occurred once or several times in close proximity without any real connection between them and the belief that the performance of one will lead Necessarily for the second: if we pray for rain in the fall, it will indeed come. I have no doubt that anyone who knows animals or raises them, can find examples of this.

72. point,

    You can make two parallel statements:
    A. I think.
    B. My nervous system/brain thinks.

    You can never mean the same thing in these two statements. The term "forever" appears here not as a superlative, but as a very preliminary structured determination. "I" will always remain "here", and my nervous system will always remain "there". The object can never connect in a bond of identity with the subject. This problem has existed since man stood on his philosophical and scientific opinion, and the possibility of reaching a solution has not only not come a millimeter closer since the beginning of scientific thinking, but the solution is getting further and further away as science progresses (a fact that does not detract in the slightest from the necessity and enormous advantages of science).

    It is impossible to take this question and dismiss it with a tongue twister or state that it has no importance, just because we have decided (in advance) that the soul is the result of the physical and that anything that does not fit this view belongs in the garbage can. As soon as you can formulate in a sane and reasonable manner (and without lying, of course!) a sentence like this:

    "My (my) mind now wants my (my) legs to go to the refrigerator, where (my) hands will open the door and take out a bottle of cold water, and shove them into (my) stomach because (my) organism is thirsty" - at the same moment that such a sentence (which is objective, to your version) , should be true!) would be possible or logical I will admit my mistake. I put the word "mine" in parentheses because of course it already contains the desired assumption - "mine" requires the existence of the subject "I", and is therefore absurd or false, if we are determined to stick to the truth.

73. point,

    Processes are also physical, they are physico-chemical.
    If the nervous system and its products are not physical then why do drugs have an effect on them? Do all living things have a soul? For bacteria for example? They are able to react to the chemical world around them within the limited tools they have, what does that mean? that they have a soul that shares with them? that evaporates when they cease to exist? Why is there no reliable evidence for the existence of two separate systems, body and mind?

74. Mrs. Sa'ar says: "Enoch to the generation according to his way".

75. What does Mrs. Amalia Saar Kupferberg say - instead of buying the right book, buy from me the book that encourages ignorance?

76. I mainly mean the lack of research progress in the field and the inability to create a convincing cognitive model based on the theory, see the discussions on the concept's talk page on Wikipedia.

    It should also be remembered that there is a limit to where the comparison between a selfish gene and a selfish meme can be stretched. The garden has an actual independent existence in the physical world, a meme exists only in the mental plane. An epidemic, which is a number of harmful genes united together, can flourish and thrive even if it offers nothing but pain and suffering to those infected with it. A meme cannot survive without offering benefit, or the illusion of benefit (aka mental benefit), to those who believe in it, because otherwise they would not believe in it. It is quite possible that the final result for a person or society is negative, but as we know, future results have no meaning in evolution.

77. Sharon,
    A neuron is physical, but this process is not physical.

78. point:
    You are not new here.
    I have explained more than once - also in discussions with you - what I think should be called "good".
    Since I am a human being and religion is not a human being, it is my "goodness" that matters and the "goodness" of religion is just a set of rules invented by a few people to enslave others.

    Ohad:
    If you don't take issue with the idea of ​​memes then don't mention them.
    It is an unfair method to come to someone with claims without being able to respond because he does not know what the claims are.
    I promise you that I can circus any such reservation with one hand tied behind my back.
    You probably did not internalize my words about the self-preservation of religion.
    It's just like any other virus.
    Would you argue that because a lot of people get AIDS that means AIDS has an adaptive advantage?

79. point,

    Neuro refers to nerve cells. neurons. They are physical entities, I swear I saw them through the microscope. They form about a billion synapses in one square millimeter in the cortex of all of us. This is what is capable of creating the nonsense that some pseudo-philosophers write here.
    Sharon

80. To the point, you cursed 6 million people, probably.

81. Michael, without referring to the many reservations that exist in relation to the idea of ​​memes, the fact that religion exists mainly to serve itself does not contradict a positive effect it may have on a person's mental well-being, just as the fact that reproduction exists to serve the copies of genes does not rule out a potential mental benefit to a person as a result of establishing Family.

    Even defining religion as a harmful "meme" does not negate the positive adaptive value it provides to its believers, since the social establishment that encourages belief in it did not exist during its initial development, which occurred countless times separately in every recorded human society, so you did not eliminate the problem but only pushed it a little Tens of thousands of years ago. Since religion does not provide any real advantage - I assume that the adaptive value in question was mental or tribal (even if you claim that it was created to serve the elite - the question still remains why exactly this form of population control was so successful?)

    You yourself said that a person is defined mainly by the collection of memes that make him up. Is priming such a central meme in the soul of a true believer a moral act?

    In any case, the main reason I referred to the article is not due to the claim of a positive value of faith, but due to the idea of ​​disconnection between the physical plane and the mental plane presented in it. I see a life according to religious values ​​as the same as a life guided by faith in any other moral-national-philosophical principle: lacking any source in the physical world, and therefore fundamentally irrefutable by science.

82. The illustrious, the generative, the cursed, the deprived, the crazed.
    Is there a discount for science friends?

83. I also thought so because of other things you wrote. But if you say no then who am I…

    In any case, why do you give so much weight to what you think is good when you come to argue against the goodness of religion?

    It seems to me that religion can be explained this way,
    It is enough to describe religion as a result of the emotional mechanism embedded in many animals that makes them follow the leader and even blindly. This probably has evolutionary advantages.

    The people with the developed imagination were not satisfied with the local leader of the tribe who only cared about their physical bodies, and created imaginary idols. Their students with poor imagination of course followed them. And so the religious war broke out.

    The adaptation here is not in the old evolutionary sense that man manifests himself to his external environment, but in the new sense that man shaped his soul according to his internal environment (imagination).
    In general, religion will probably always win over science in the current situation. The feeling of curiosity is weak relative to the need for a leader.

84. In an uncompromising and overwhelming decision, the celebrated Miss Piggy decided to take an unprecedented pig ride and take advantage of her position on this site to summon all the privileged, refined and recycled members of her species to come en masse to the Hebrew Book Week in the Kings Square of Israel and purchase the book from the "Hanuch Sa'ar" publishing house: "Pearls and radishes for pigs" and this, against all the plagues of the figist influences that were recently declared as a "world epidemic".
    The name of the book is from the 'stem': "Khagigim and the wise for 2012-2013" for the training of all the bar-aware triangles who are not aware of the coming to their heart and doors:) 😆 😐 😯 😕 👿 😳 😛 💡
    Miss Piggy hopes that Yehuda is not angry for introducing an unrelated matter and yet into a matter called 'public health'!

85. point:
    Obviously, it is wrong to say that evolution leads to good things, even though we both agree that the concept of "good" has no meaning outside of the human context.
    Why do you think that just by adding this claim to my arguments you can understand them?
    You know me well enough to know that when I see an existing phenomenon I will not claim that it is impossible.
    I definitely think that a religion could have been created and I also explained the mechanisms that lead to this. 

86. Elisha,
    Certainly the mind is not physical, in the same way, a neurological process is not physical.

87. Michael,
    Is it correct to say that you believe that evolution leads to good things?
    Only then will I understand some of your claims in the things you write.
    Because apparently, in your opinion, a religion should not have been created because it is not a good thing, etc...

88. Agnus (104):
    You say that you would be happy to know what the proofs are for the non-existence of a soul separate from the body and ignore the fact that even during this discussion I referred many times to my article which deals with the subject and proves it to anyone who is willing to accept the scientific method.
    So here - I refer you once again:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/

    Elisha (107):
    I really don't understand what you want to tell us.
    Are you trying to argue that someone who is already caught in false beliefs is already immune from being caught in them?
    It goes without saying, but it doesn't make his situation better because he is already occupied.
    The fools of science come from the ultra-orthodox community as a whole and not just from the converts.
    The parasites of his teachings and his art are also ultra-orthodox, most of whom do not repent.
    A child who studied in the educational institutions of the ultra-Orthodox community knows nothing about the real world. In this he is inferior even to a penitent.
    So it's true - only those who live can die, but is that a reason to be born dead?

    Isaac:
    You just reverse the creation.
    Religions separate people and do not unite them.
    Humans unite under the wings of religion in only one thing and that is the war against those who do not hold their religion (which is almost the whole world).
    Instead of humans all coming together and solving the real problems such as global warming, diseases of all kinds, protection against asteroids and natural disasters, searching for a planet to which we can move when the earth is no longer habitable and more, they are fighting each other over who has a greater God.
    When men argue about who has more, they are at least arguing about something they have.
    When you believe in flying spaghetti monsters of sorts, you argue - that's the truly pathetic thing!
    We do not sell social indifference and detachment.
    What kind of gibberish is this?!
    Does the fact that we bother to answer all the nonsense that is heard here (and believe me - it is extremely difficult work because a fool can throw a stone into the water that a hundred wise men will not be able to remove) seems to you to be a result of indifference or detachment?
    We're just trying to sell honesty and devotion to the truth.
    Your above accusations show that we haven't been able to sell our merchandise yet.

    Arnon:
    There are things that we do not know but the things that the different believers claim are things that not only we do not know but also they do not know.
    Claiming as if something you don't know is true - it's a lie - and at least I don't like liars.
    my right?

    Goat:
    There is not a single correct claim in your words.
    The axioms of science are of two types.
    One type is the axioms of logic.
    In these axioms we have no choice but to believe.
    Otherwise it's not even possible to talk and if they weren't willing we wouldn't survive either.
    The second type of axioms are the results of experiments.
    They too cannot be chosen or replaced.
    Therefore, it is not a question of "to believe or not to believe" at all.
    What scientists believe in, religious people also believe in because man simply has no other choice.
    Therefore, there is no basis for your claim that the axioms of science are equivalent to the axioms of religion.
    The axioms of science are included in the axioms of religion, only those who believe - even though they believe in them, choose to add all kinds of baseless axioms and when a contradiction arises between the conclusions arising from the axioms that everyone accepts and the unnecessary and wrong axioms they added, they simply start screaming.

    Beyond those axioms - there are theories in science.
    Theories do not have the status of axioms.
    On the contrary! To gain the status of a scientific theory - a claim must say something that is refutable!

    Theories are indeed refuted here and there and this is precisely the self-correction that science makes for itself.
    To require religion to do the same thing is indeed ridiculous because it means to require religion to be rational - something that is contrary to its very essence. This essence is what makes religions such a bad thing!
    That's why I don't demand that religion correct itself. I simply suggest that sane people leave religion.

89. to Elisha,

    Never use the word never because you are most likely wrong.
    The soul does not exist. It is an invention designed to describe what we do not understand. Brain research has made a large number of advances linking nerve cells to memory and learning, whispering, perception, attention and the like. Many studies at resolution levels ranging from genes to behaving animals shed light on brain research. This research will give us a perfect understanding of the hardware and software underlying the brain's activity.
    Let's say that your "mind" sank into a depressed mood. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors have (in some cases) the ability to readjust your state. There is a chance that your mood will improve. Just a molecule. Does she have access to the soul?
    Your "mind" suffers from Parkinson's. Electrical stimulation deep inside your brain can reduce the symptoms (stimulation a little to the side and your mind sinks into clinical depression). Have we touched the soul?
    Do you suffer from schizophrenia? Is your body being hunted by the KGB? Treatment with an antagonist to one of the dopamine receptors can reduce or eliminate the hallucinations. Is the mind affected by a molecule?

    The issue of science and faith comes up frequently here.
    Science does not claim ownership of the truth. He has ownership of the best way to go down to the search for truth. Is this a perfect way? No. Does anyone here have a way to tell the difference between fiction and truth?
    Oh, I forgot, there is no such thing as truth, it's all relative, it's all an illusion. The idea of ​​freezing in reality is a trite and ancient philosophical pastime.

    Sharon

90. Religion contributes to the survival... of itself only

    Haim Heilperin, in his critical article (issue 124) on Dawkins' book "Is there God?" Makes a fundamental mistake in my opinion.
    He writes about how the success of religions is evidence of their contribution to man's adaptation to life in his environment. This claim - not only has nothing to rely on and not only does it leave open the question of how it is that animals manage without religion and yet do not commit suicide - but it is also discussed and explained in the book clearly.
    The key to explaining the (destructive) power of religion is found in two areas. The first is the concept of "memes", which Dawkins already coined in his previous books and the second is the tendency of children to believe what adults say.

    Let's start with the concept of "memes":
    Unlike the animals (who are mainly controlled by their genetic order), man identifies with his thoughts more than with his body and therefore even after a serious accident, even if a large part of his body stopped functioning and a part even stopped existing - as long as his mind is not damaged - he will continue to perceive himself as the same person.
    The thoughts and ideas that "play" in a person's mind are also given a name - "memes" on the weight of "genes".
    These memes are copied from person to person and mutate along the way in a similar way to genes (only with less precision and without being subject to the body's birth processes, since they can pass from one person to another even during life).
    This is the reason why, at the same time as man follows his genetic order and produces offspring, he also follows the order of his thoughts and tries to produce disciples. Memes can be seen as a kind of "parasitic" entity on the human brain. The word "parasitic" is in quotation marks, because this presentation of things ignores the fact that man actually defines himself mainly by the collection of memes that make up his thoughts; In any case, it is true to say that memes can only exist thanks to the minds that host them.
    Religion, any religion, is to me a collection of memes. A religion that survives is a collection of water that preserves itself. I would like to emphasize - he preserves himself and not necessarily the person who carries it in his mind. He does this, for example by memes of "death for the sanctification of Hashem", by memes of murder for the sanctification of Hashem, or by all kinds of lies about scientific truths hidden in the Torah.

    Why do I claim that he collects the guard himself and not the host?
    After all, death for the sanctification of Hashem does not preserve the inn. But if this meme had not been coined, everyone would have converted their religion when it was convenient and then - even though the people would have all remained alive - the religion would have been lost.
    That is why it is better for a religion to sometimes sacrifice some people (for whom they are just a platform to survive itself).
    This is exactly what happened throughout Jewish history and that is why I claim that the Jewish religion survived at the expense of its construction.

    Religion becomes especially dangerous because of a certain feature of humans that is well described in Arthur Koestler's book - The Ghost in the Machine. In this book, the author laments the tendency we have as humans to perform as part of a herd such horrific actions that we would never dare to perform as individuals.
    Here things connect to the claim presented many times as if most crimes against humanity were committed by "secular" forces such as Nazism and Marxism. Contrary to their presentation as "secular" phenomena, Marxism and Nazism are actually examples of religions, in the sense that they represent a collection of memes that is accepted without criticism and preserves itself without compromise. Communism and Nazism are religions for all intents and purposes, even if they are not based on God because they have (wrong) axioms that are accepted without any criticism and from which crazy behavior arises. Equally, nationalistic fanaticism is a religion.
    Whether you agree that it is correct to call these phenomena "religions" or not, what is important to notice is that all the evil in these phenomena stems from the same sources from which the evil in religions originates: a collection of memes, some of which are wrong, that preserves itself at the expense of humans.
    There are, in some religions, memes or commandments that contribute to the reproduction of the people who hold them, but here too it is the exact same thing - these commandments help the memes of the religion to reproduce and they also use man as a "platform" only - the use of man as a tool for their survival.
    It is appropriate to call such a collection of memes a mental virus, because just like a normal virus it can cause an epidemic and even take over all humans. Does that mean it's helpful? of course not. It is extremely harmful, it kills many people, and even if it eventually succeeds in taking over the minds of all the people it did not kill, they will cease to be people in the true sense of the word.
    We will continue with the tendency of children to believe the words of adults: in fact, this tendency exists among all animals capable of learning and it forms an essential basis for the ability of young people to quickly learn what adults know without being exposed to the dangers involved in self-discovery of knowledge.
    A young monkey learns from the adult monkeys that he should be afraid of snakes and this saves him the danger of learning the harm of the snakes to his flesh. The situation in which adults know much more about the world than those who were born this way is a natural situation. In this situation there is an evolutionary advantage in that the newly born will accept the knowledge of their parents (whether it is transmitted through personal example or whether it is transmitted in words) as it is, without trying to criticize it too much. Young people who do this increase their chances of survival by intuitively applying the saying "Who is wise? - He who learns from the experience of others!"
    Therefore it is not surprising that the vast majority of people follow the same religion as their parents.
    At a certain point, the knowledge that his parents can instill in him comes to fruition, and the place of faith must be taken by critical thought. The critical thinking that begins at a certain age also has an evolutionary advantage and I am quite convinced that the phenomenon of "youth rebellion" is a natural phenomenon that is "designed" to initiate this type of behavior. The problem is that the criticism is usually applied only to new knowledge that is tested and not to beliefs learned in early childhood.
    That is why there are also religious adults.

91. point

    You are right when you say that no one has the tools to deal with the soul. We start with the study of the brain, as you describe, and stay with processes in synapses, movements of neurotransmitters and electrical pulses - but about the **soul** no physiologist can say more than a psychologist, musician, philosopher or taxi driver can say, because the soul is not physical. You can explain to me everything that happens in my nervous system when I feel pain, but you can never explain to me how I feel the pain, or how I believe that a certain thought is correct, like omelettes but do not like the neighbor on the left. This is not proof of the existence of the soul separately from the body, but nevertheless a certain hint in the direction.

92. To me, the argument according to which Hitler and Stalin were atheists is repeated on every site and in every debate with ultra-Orthodox.

93. ultra-Orthodox,
    Do you call the terrorism that happened last week in Jerusalem to which the mayor surrendered a little? And for the opening of dozens of kindergartens in Ramat Aviv, do you happen a little? If it is little then what are you waiting for to have millions of converts, only then will it satisfy you? Even the tens if not hundreds of thousands who were lost to the country as productive and self-supporting people have already caused enough damage.

94. Read on my user talk page an argument I had with one of the participants who repeatedly deleted it and claimed it was vandalism that I re-upload it every time. He decided that science is not the only criterion, but that there is equality between the different arguments. About in English the situation is not much better. It is written there that reports that examined psychics found that they resorted to cheating tactics, but in no way should it be written in advance that this is nonsense, it's a shame that these are the sites from which the youth get their first and sometimes only information on many subjects.

    And besides, what's so stupid about the sentence, after all, he correctly described the situation. Now you just need to add phone numbers and addresses of psychics to the value and that's it.

95. Your sentence doesn't appear at all.
    Stupid sentence anyway..

96. Agnus, the mind is very complex... no one has the tools to deal with the mind, they start with brain research and progress.

97. point,

    Science does not deal with the soul because it does not have the tools to deal with it.

    I am at least happy that we reached a point of agreement regarding the sentence in the body of the article with which I disagreed, and which was the only reason for my response.

98. Agnus, you are certainly right about that, science does not mess with the mind at all, and not for nothing.

    Therefore you also have to agree that hallucinating theories about the soul such as the souls of demons and angels is just ignorance and gullibility

99. To dear Mr. Blizovsky. One hundred and fifty years ago, the ultra-Orthodox called out against the Haskalah people who also opened institutions in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods to return the question. There they enticed the best of the ultra-Orthodox youth to read general literature and open up to the world. All the enlightened people welcomed this move. Don't be surprised that your methods are now being used to reverse the situation a bit.

100. Avi,
     You write, "You seem to be reading apostolic sites very well because you are deriving their argument." I have never read a website of converts. It's a shame that you condemn people to death.
     Have a wonderful life.

101. point,

     I did not invent the psychophysical problem. There is no way to explain the existence of consciousness. Even tongue twisters will not hide the fact that each of us (I can testify with certainty only about myself, but everyone knows about themselves) has a consciousness. Again, I don't care what you call it, but it's something that today we don't know how to reconcile the connection between it and the material.

     I'm not trying to dodge. I really don't know what consciousness is, and I allow myself to think that no one does. I'm just annoyed by the fact that science is being mobilized to formulate such a sentence. No, science does not deny the existence of the mind separate from the body. No shame in saying we just don't know.

102. I have nothing to comment on, postmodernism incarnate, all values ​​are equal, there is no better and no less good, I cannot deal with such people. They probably don't live in the same country as me. And besides that, I'm not a follower of television, especially when there are stupid advertisers who put nonsense into children's heads - for example, that the ancient man in the Stone Age lived together with dinosaurs (this only exists in the creation museum in the USA). Besides, anyone who lived in Ramat Aviv in the last decade could not ignore the converts who are in every hole and have already opened about twenty kindergartens to qualify the transformation of these neighborhoods into ultra-Orthodox.

103. But Agnus, you yourself write an answer to your question, consciousness resides in the living person. That is, the abode of consciousness is in the living person.

     So why do you use a meaningless word like soul?

     In general, I must disagree with you and the majority who think that consciousness is something that exists.

104. Although your goals are welcome, "the website has existed for 12 years and the ignorance is not small", which strengthens my argument that the way you treat those who think differently than you probably will not lead to the realization of your goal.

     Apart from that, I did not suggest that you balance between rationality and mysticism, on the contrary, I am glad that there are people like you who care about society, and try to broaden the horizons of the public and keep them away from charlatans.

105. Regarding Hitler, it should be added that although he was not religious in the conventional sense, he definitely believed that he was chosen by "Supreme Providence" to lead the German people, and was even steeped in superstitions.

     Of course, compared to Himmler, who is responsible for the Holocaust at least as much as he is, and who believed that the Aryan race descended from the sky to Atlantis, and spread after its drowning in the entire world while founding every high human culture that exists on the globe and constituting the local elite in it, he was relatively a rationalist.

106. point,

     You can call it whatever you want. If there is consciousness (and I hope you won't argue with me about this too), and it resides in a person only when he is alive, then there is something in the living body that is not in the dead body. You want to call it a soul or a soul, call it that and say it has a dwelling place. You do not want? Say that she has no abode and just that a person has consciousness. What is clear is that there is a difference between a living body and a dead body, and that is consciousness.

     Now, dear Avi Blizovsky wrote: "Since science denies the separate existence of the soul from the body, there is no real possibility of performing conjuration." I understand from his words that science was able to understand exactly what the soul is and rule out the possibility that it exists outside the body. I just wanted to know if science really recognizes the existence of the soul in life, and to know how it was able to prove that it does not exist outside the human body after death.

     I did not intend to open a discussion here about the existence of the soul and its essence, nor do I have the intellectual capacity to do so. All I wanted was to point out an overly pretentious sentence in the article, that's all.

107. Abby, you skipped my 114 response to you.

108. To me it's not accurate,
     Hitler in Meinkamp described the goal of the Aryan race to be like God.

109. Eli Mizrahi - it seems that you carefully read the websites of converts because you derive their argument. Well, that's not accurate. The three personalities you mentioned did not believe in the existing religions but they certainly invented their own religion that should describe reality while hiding every detail of it that does not correspond to reality. It's a fact that each of the three you mentioned had their own scriptures that told people how to behave. The fact that they called themselves atheists only obliges them.

     And not without reason, does it occur to you that Benjamin Netanyahu or Barack Obama will publish books - not biographies or books describing their views, both published such books but books that tell people to do so and so and so and so not to do in the style of Mao's Red Book, or Mein Kampf?

     This is what distinguishes a religious or pseudo-religious dictatorship from secularism and atheism.

110. Eli, the site has existed for 12 years and the ignorance is not small unfortunately. It is difficult to remain indifferent in the face of the legitimacy of ignorance in the newspapers, on television, on Wikipedia, around the government table and more, while the universities receive billions of shekels in fines for reducing ignorance in their activities. The government is comfortable with us being ignorant and therefore it actually encourages the ignorant and actually punishes those who oppose ignorance.

     There is no possibility of equality between the truth and a lie, nor can there be respect for liars, because very few of them do not think they are lying - on the contrary, they do so consciously and angrily. The site does not belong to the Broadcasting Authority, and therefore does not have a sacred duty of balance between left and right, between rationality and mysticism, etc.

111. Avi Shalom,

     Like you, I am an atheist, but when I read the crude way in which you express yourself, I begin to think that maybe something spiritual is still missing in you/us.

     Mao Zedong, Hitler and Stalin were atheists like us, which did not prevent them from becoming the greatest murderers in history. Hence atheism or "rationality" does not necessarily lead to enlightenment.

     Advancing science and leading people away from superstitions are important goals, but the end does not justify the means. It seems to me that if you give more respect to those who think differently than you, you will find more paths to their hearts, and from there the path is shorter to their minds.

112. Wow, things move fast here.

     First of all, I really don't discredit science and actually am very interested in it and believe in it. but:

     It doesn't matter if you call it "science" or "faith" - the two things are one. When you descend to the level of the axiom, you realize that there is nothing left but to choose one of them based on intuition alone. One can believe in one axiom and reject another, but there is no person in the world who can prove the correctness of one and the wrongness of another. That's why I call science faith - because it cannot establish its own core with its own method.

     I think the statement that "science corrects its mistakes and religion does not" is very problematic. First of all, this is actually an examination of religion by scientific means - it is similar to a sighted person describing the color red to the ears of a person blind from birth. This is precisely why I believe that all attempts to explain the rifting of the Red Sea (for example) by scientific means completely miss the point. For a believer, the proof of God's existence is the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. This logic is based on an axiom that is no more proven or disproved than the logic on which science is based.

     Which is more in line with reality? This is again a matter of perspective. Each approach has its own explanation for reality, and again - all scientific and religious explanations are based on axioms that cannot be proven or disproved.

     Since the issue of converts has come up here and I am already facing accusations on the subject, I feel the need to clarify that I am not a religious person nor do I believe in God, and I am not trying to convince anyone but to present my philosophical thoughts.

113. Father, you describe the seculars as if they are innocent and poor righteous people who know the truth and everyone else is harassing them. You know that nothing is further from the truth, the stupidity in the secular world is on average many times greater than in the orthodox world. There they also open a book and study while they watch TV.

     And in general there is no disagreement in principle between the ultra-orthodox and the secular, everyone thinks they have found the method of how to spend life having fun.

114. Arnon, your sentence: "Behind the heavy fog curtain of the charlatans and quacks, there are certainly some real and amazing things that today we have no ability to explain but maybe in the future we will be able to" is a sentence that covers a fear that maybe there is something after all, this is the basis on which the repentant work. But the worst thing that can happen to a martyr who kills Jews and is convinced that he will go to heaven and 72 virgins will be waiting for him is to be told oops, you were wrong, God is even Buddhist and now you ate her go to hell.
     If we remove this doubt that originates from those mesitkins and religious people who have too much access to the media, we can live in peace. And by the way, even if 99% of the world believes that you should jump off the roof, it does not oblige me. It is not the quantity that matters, but the truth.

115. Agnus, you wrote: The soul is the abode of consciousness"
     1) How do you know that consciousness resides in the soul?
     2) What is an abode of consciousness, who said that consciousness resides at all?

116. Avi,
     I'll start by saying that my personal opinion is close to yours, but…
     It is true that we no longer live in the Middle Ages, but we still do not know everything and that means there is uncertainty about many things. In a situation of uncertainty the most dangerous thing is extremism and it really doesn't matter in which direction.
     To say "nonsense" about things that you cannot rule out or test or that you have not experienced is a form of ignorance and sorry for the harsh word.
     There are sentences of yours that sound like "Obviously the world is not round, otherwise people on the other side would fall into space!"
     An argument that makes perfect sense when you don't have the full picture.

     All people are afraid of the unknown (including you) and there are several forms of coping:
     Extreme 1 - there is a God and he created everything and decides everything (the problem is solved)
     Extreme 2 – Astrology, reincarnation, homeopathy, numerology and everything else is a rant (suppressing the problem!)
     A third way is to leave a gray area, this does not mean scattering amulets in the house, but it does mean that behind the heavy fog curtain of charlatans and quacks, there are certainly some real and amazing things that today we cannot explain but maybe in the future we will be able to.

     There is a black president but half of the US believes he is God's creation and not evolution...
     For every step forward there are those who take a step back, there is nothing to do.
     Fighting each other is not the way, let's be tolerant first.

117. Isaac calm down, as you understand there is no difference between the Jewish, Christian, Hottentot, Buddhist, etc. narrative. The whole idea of ​​these companies is how to increase their number and thus their budget by stealing people either from each other and especially at the expense of the seculars.
     In answer to your question, there is no god, he did not create the world and as for the exodus from Egypt, every nation has its own stories, we did not leave Egypt. The Greeks were not created as a result of the quarrels of the gods on Olympus and the conception of women who gave birth to the sons of the gods; The Romans were not created as a result of the twins being suckled from the wolf's milk. God also did not reveal himself to Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, these are human beings with high charisma who managed to sway people after them in their time and managed to survive for them.

     Our goods are excellent. Our cart is much more full than all your carts and those of your competitors, only that the accessibility to them due to the stupidity of those responsible for the Ministry of Education and the media is low, while the accessibility to your goods is very high, and therefore you are successful. Unfortunately, in front of my single site and other sites that touch on the subject from other directions (not necessarily scientific or news, but they are also few) there are endless books, websites, TV programs (try to open channel 10 in the morning and afternoon), radio programs (today I heard that they invited a graphologist for the Coke program Mom's on the IDF airwaves and I was shocked. I also know how to be careful from Lazpazap to the B network at ten o'clock on Friday so as not to have a heart attack from Miriam Binyamini's corner) and what not.

     The only product in short supply is the intelligence of the editors in the media, who probably got a bad grade in calculus in the third grade and have since treated anyone who is more intelligent than them with fear and hatred. That's why you won't find science in prime time, and on the other hand Amnon Yitzchak will have a place to make his voice heard in every hole.

118. my father
     With so much hatred and frustration, you will not be able to cause change.
     Not even with placing the responsibility on external parties, your actions and the goods you are trying to market - probably something is missing in them, something that humanity finds in faith.
     A belief that cannot be provoked and does not need material proofs.
     The longing for the good, the feeling that my self is a tiny but significant part of an infinite whole,
     These are things that are! Human need!
     Therefore, people organize around a central narrative and organize a "public longing for the good", they cling to the narrative as a force that shapes good and bad, allows belief in the existence of reward and punishment, allows the creation of a collective identity that connects the individual to the society in which he lives.
     Thus the importance of the historical truth of the narrative is marginal if at all.
     You and your friend are trying to prove with signs and wonders that the Jewish narrative is fiction, and to that I repeat that this is absurd.
     You sell social indifference and detachment. And here is the problem. It is not convenient for the people to live in your faith.
     So does God exist? Did he create the world? Did we leave Egypt when we became a people? The answer is yes! For those who recognize the values ​​that this narrative leads, for those who want to belong to the Jewish collective.
     And on this the Sages have already said: All Israel have a part in the world to come, except those who deny the existence of the world to come. And they added to say that everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven.
     Eye of choice
     Shabbat Shalom.

119. Glamor,

     You wrote: "This is an excellent example of fruitful and even exciting future cooperation between science and mysticism"

     Well, this is an excellent example of using the same words for concepts that have no connection and no similarity between them.
     When mystics talk about additional dimensions, they have no idea what these dimensions are, and what their properties are. They have no need to prove the existence of these undefined dimensions (personal experience is enough...), and they are nothing more than works of imagination without any basis, whose only benefit is in creating fascinating and entertaining stories.

     Dimensions in science have a precise meaning, there are mathematical equations that describe their properties, and there are certainly attempts to confirm or disprove their existence.

     The "new" mystics tend to adopt a variety of scientific terms and use them in a completely different way, without any deep understanding, in the hope that this way their stories will sound more credible. The same goes for: energies, quanta, frequencies, etc.
     Each of the above terms has a precise and defined scientific meaning, and they do not have any defined meaning when mystics and IJs of various kinds use them (unfortunately, an excellent example of this can be seen on the website by Hogins of various kinds).

     It is no coincidence that I specifically asked you about ** criteria ** for differentiating between delusions and true mysticism. You didn't give any answer to that, but only told about personal experiences. You must know how much nonsense and gibberish people utter based on personal experiences.

     Human knowledge began to advance rapidly, just as they began to use the scientific method, and stopped relying on personal experiences.

     You are actually trying to take us back thousands of years, to a pre-scientific time, a time when everything was based on personal stories and subjective experiences. During this period, human knowledge made progress, and there is no need to miss this period.

120. Avi and Michael R.

     A distinction must be made between occupation in the realms beyond - whatever we call it - and black cults that take over a person's "I", appropriate his property and money, cut him off from his family and exploit him. It is completely clear to me that for you there is no difference between the two, it's all the same predation and scum, and I don't think that can be changed. But in a slightly more detailed diagnosis, the chances of children of parents interested in "fields beyond" falling prey to black cults and converts are much lower than children of atheist parents. Likewise - although with a few more exceptions - regarding moderate traditional families in relation to extreme converts.

121. Point, the soul is an abode of consciousness.

122. Agnus, just tell me what a soul is and we'll see if we can prove it.

123. I would be happy to know what the scientific proofs are that deny the existence of a soul separate from the body.

124. Michael, the Bible says that Saul went to Ba'alat Ob, who claimed to him that she was conveying messages to him from the "world of truth", not that such messages were really conveyed. Maimonides, for example, did not really accept this story at face value.

     Regarding the soul, all I wanted to claim is that it is not possible to prove its non-existence by using the tools of the scientific method, which is not intended for metaphysical investigation. Indeed, the scientific discoveries provide an almost complete materialistic picture of the development of the universe in general and life in particular, which contradicts most of the conventions of religion, and seemingly eliminates the need for it, but it cannot be claimed that it is incumbent on the entire population to accept this worldview, which cannot be proven in principle.

     Whether the excuses that seek to create an ode to the shadow of fire for the existence of religious concepts alongside modern science are "irrational" or not is already a matter of perspective, and in any case, our way of thinking, apart from the very narrow domain of the scientific method and certain technical philosophical concepts, is not logical but emotional, as evidenced Countless studies of behavioral biases. If a religious scientist, or just a person who is familiar to a certain extent with the achievements of modern science and their profound contradiction to the traditional claims of religion, who was brought up on the knees of a certain worldview and feels that abandoning it would be a betrayal of himself, his family and himself, etc., wants to hold on to this excuse, let him be blessed, and we have no right to deny it to him.

     In any case, we base our whole lives on abstract values ​​that do not exist in reality. and worldviews that cannot be objectively substantiated. In fact, it can be argued that the entire mental layer within which our consciousness exists is a complete illusion with only a loose connection to physical reality (http://www.ifeel.co.il/page/12613). I see no particular harm in adding one more imaginary source to the list, especially when it has such great adaptive value for the mental well-being of the believer.

125. Now I also saw Michael's response.
     In the same way that you accuse the mystics of misusing scientific terms, you also commit a similar and more serious sin here.
     While the mystics use scientific terms to describe another reality they are actually borrowing perceptual concepts to describe an unimaginable reality. And as I said above, it is impossible to describe the other reality in terms known from our world and inevitably such descriptions will lead to a false understanding and wrong conclusions.
     In contrast, I regretfully feel a lot of cynicism in your responses, the truth-seeking and open-minded scientists, and in a cynical attachment to words and concepts that leads to unnecessary, mainly semantic, involvement, instead of the essence of the matter. For some reason you tend to overuse the term 'new age' and always in a cynical context. The term 'frequency' is purely for illustration and it is a shame that you are caught by it in its simple meaning.
     It is clear that cynicism does not contribute to an objective understanding, but only distances us from it and relieves us of a factual reference to the matter under discussion, and by using cynicism one gets the impression that you are somehow digging into your positions and not showing enough openness to something that goes beyond the realm of scientific proof to which you are accustomed. This approach in itself is not scientific.

126. Elisha:
     Just to be clear - those who are ultra-orthodox from the beginning do not need to join the cults of insanity because they are there from the beginning.
     He is actually a baby who was captured even before he developed an "I" that would need to be mastered.

127. Father, you present it as if there is a fundamental disagreement between the religious and the secular.

128. Elisha:
     interesting!
     Are you really claiming that in order to go from secularism to religiosity you have to start by being secular?
     What a surprising insight!

     Glamor:
     String theory talks about rolled and small dimensions only because in everyday reality we only notice the normal dimensions, whereas if the dimensions were normal we would notice them easily.
     The whole idea of ​​the incarnation of the dimensions is a refinement beyond the insight reached by mathematicians a long time ago, regarding the ability to deal mathematically with additional dimensions.

     In any case, there is no cooperation here between scientists and mystics since the latter do not contribute to anything - all they do is steal words.

129. True Elisha, but it is because their propaganda power, and the human power of these cults is infinite, on the other hand, the secular parents have to work for their livelihood (among other things also to support the parasites), and so it turns out that they cannot pay enough attention to their children. In their place, it is done by the parasites whose profession is conversion, invitation to Jesus or the growth of their sect.

130. To my father Blizovsky

     Regarding response 80, the majority of those who return to repentance and join cults that take over the "I" are indeed children of strictly secular and atheist parents.

131. Zohar, the experience you experienced is perhaps the experience of understanding, like the experience a blind person who begins to see experiences.
     But it is clear to you that there is nothing to be proud of that most of the time you are in the dark and you only have moments of enlightenment.

     Mysticism is the way to give some feeling to people who spend most of their time in the sea of ​​stupidity.

132. Hi Noam
     In string theory it is about dimensions that are 'folded' or 'rolled' in such a way that we cannot perceive them.
     I see here only a mathematical explanation for the additional dimensions that the mystics are able to unite with. This is an excellent example of a fruitful and even exciting future collaboration between science and mysticism.
     And to your first question, in 'real' mysticism there are no beliefs. There is only knowledge gained from experiences. You can claim that the experiences are subjective and thus you apply the method of research and proof that we are used to in our dimensions, to the other dimensions. This is still not enough to contradict the facts that the mystic 'knows'. And also, between two mystics there will be agreement regarding most of the facts or at least regarding their essence (and this is for reasons related to the different way in which we experience knowledge in the other dimensions).
     A good mystic teacher does not teach his students facts about additional dimensions because the mind, again the physical, cannot understand them and therefore will always interpret them in a wrong way (which will lead to false beliefs), but if he provides his students with the tools with which they can 'change the frequency' and experience these facts themselves (here It should be added that the goal of mysticism is not the investigation of facts and the acquisition of knowledge, but the mystic meets this knowledge in his own way).
     A good teacher also emphasizes to his students the importance of completely avoiding any kind of belief and instructs them not to believe even in himself. Although each student is exposed to the facts by himself and alone and may interpret in a wrong way, here the role of the teacher is to provide the right tools with which the student can find his way correctly among his many experiences and in any case the margin of error is reduced. But even here it should be remembered that it is not about beliefs but a misinterpretation of facts, a difficulty that every scientist knows from his work.

133. Isaac:
     After all, it is clear that anyone who is able to communicate with you is also able to communicate with the bacteria in his stomach.
     It's a matter of ease and substance.

134. point
     It's mine, it's mine and it's mine...
     But if you ask nicely, I'll let you play them too..
     We're already big kids, aren't we?
     Michael
     Please continue. I need a huge man like you capable of intimate relations with the germs in his stomach
     Because I won't dwell on how long the road is that I still have to go until I can get closer to the light
     The rising from... (his honor will continue)
     And why do I keep commenting - it's simple, I enjoy it, I like to laugh, period!

135. Noam:
     The matter of dimensions is simply another example of the malicious use of "scientific" terms by the people of the new age.
     Another term they use for the exact same need is the term "frequency".
     I have already had the opportunity to ask someone who spoke about a reality that exists in other dimensions what she meant and receive an answer that it refers to other frequencies.
     Since the Fourier decomposition of a function can be seen as the collection of its charges on the infinite dimensions defined by the different frequencies - it can be argued that the people of the new age talk about the Fourier decomposition but have not yet learned to steal this term either 🙂

136. Glamor,

     Please explain how you differentiate between "cheap mysticism that is very rich in false beliefs", and real and serious mysticism. What are your criteria?

     Regarding additional dimensions:
     Here you have a basic mistake. Science knows how to handle a large number of dimensions, in a precise mathematical way, even if our senses cannot perceive it. In fact, this is the greatness of science, that with the help of tools it has developed, it is able to investigate and discover things that our senses are unable to do.
     String theory, for example, talks about 11 or 26 dimensions, and this has a precise mathematical basis and not mystical stories about dimensions that have no basis and are only figments of imagination (sometimes fascinating) of one or another people.

137. Isaac:
     It's a matter of logic.
     If you understood that I could not have responded to your words if they had not appeared before my response, you would not have said this nonsense.
     But - as mentioned - we forgave you (me and the bacteria in my stomach).
     Why do you keep making it difficult?
     In your first response you asked to be forgiven for your ignorance and stupidity and you immediately proved that there is something to be forgiven.
     As soon as we forgive you - you decided to show us that we have not yet grasped the extent of the stupidity and wrote additional comments so that we might come back.
     You can relax.
     You have already illustrated the fact that the stupidity is very great and yet we (me and the bacteria) forgive.

     Ohad:
     Although these answers can be provided, there is no logic in them.
     Evasion attempts such as these were presented during the discussion of the article and there is no point in me repeating the answers they received.

     Regarding your words about the Bible - it does not keep silent about life after death - see, for example, the entry "Baalat Ha'Av".
     Besides, I don't think I argued that every religious book should refer to the soul.

     Dawn:
     Your optimism is nice but unrealistic.
     The only use that the people of darkness make of the technology developed by the people of light is for the purpose of spreading their lies.
     It could be by brainwashing attempts on the internet and it could be by building atomic bombs.
     Support for the dark views is increasing if only because of demographics.
     But it is not only because of the demographics, because New Age beliefs are spreading among the "seculars" as well.
     It is interesting that there was someone who predicted all this before 1932 and wrote a book about it called "The Revolt of the Masses".
     I refer, of course, to the well-known philosopher - Jose Ortega y Guest.

     Eddie:
     I will not write a new article.
     Brainwashing by repeating things is not my way.
     Regarding the issue of medicine - I agree with you that our disagreements are not essential.
     I think - however - that the trend you describe (and which does exist) to include proper professions within the framework of complementary medicine is an act of populist folly, all of which has economic ramifications and within the framework of which the health funds try to treat even people whose main illness - beyond the symptoms they come to treat - is an aversion to science.
     When I talked about a lying therapist I meant that therapist who presents his claims as if he knows they are true even though he doesn't.
     When someone talks about a method that has been proven to work - he is not talking about something he does not know and therefore is not lying.

     I of course completely disagree with your presentation of the approach to science as a religion.
     This is simply a slander that tries to present pseudo-secular imaginary beings as a counterweight to the truly religious.

138. I am a scientist at heart but I also practice "nonsense" that comes from spiritual teachings and as a result of the practices I experienced some 'mystical' experiences which in my humble opinion were not fantasy even though I cannot scientifically prove them.. By the way, the term 'new age' mainly refers to the bringing of very old teachings to the West. He has rebuilt almost nothing.
     In any case, I don't see any contradiction between science and mysticism and of course I'm not talking about the cheap mysticism that is very rich in false beliefs, but on the contrary, science and mysticism complement each other and one day they will unite into a comprehensive science. The explanation I gave myself is very simple and logical. It is very logical to say that the human mind is limited to the perception of physical dimensions and it is very likely to assume (provided that we are not arrogant or excessively dogmatic) that beyond the layer of reality there are additional dimensions that we do not perceive with the help of our physical senses and in any case cannot be scientifically proven which inherently relies on our senses and methods of investigation and verification that we, on our physical disability , we developed.
     I believe that mysticism (and get off the word 'religion' for a moment because, like you, it is also foreign to mysticism) is aimed at dimensions other than the ones we perceive. With the help of proper practice, it is possible to detach, even temporarily, from the shackles that limit us to the physical and expose to an additional dimension or dimensions that can also be explored but with other tools that are suitable for those dimensions, that is, tools that are completely different from those used by the physical scientist. And correspondingly, one must accept the fact that the way of 'proof' that fits these dimensions is not necessarily the same as the one we receive here in the physical dimension.
     Once you understand this (and by the way, a scientist who practices himself will be able to understand this much faster and correctly than a non-scientist), you arrive at a simple division of territories: science is responsible (and perhaps even has a monopoly) for the study of the physical dimension, while mysticism, for everything beyond. Or in other words, science is responsible for the entire field up to infinity while mysticism is responsible for what is beyond infinity. Because of this, it can be estimated that the day will come when both sides will realize that in order to fully explain the phenomenon including its causes, they need each other and will start joining hands. By the way, this kind of cooperation is exactly what the Dalai Lama is pushing for.
     By the way and in the enclosed article - Einstein was also half scientist and half mystic and he himself testified that he tends to identify with the teachings of Buddha and Spinoza. Here is an interesting quote from him: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimited superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind"
     And another quote from him: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
     I would be very happy to read your response.

139. Shahar, 70 years ago, when there were far fewer residents, far more popular science books and encyclopedias were published than today.

140. Michael,
     It doesn't seem to me that we disagree on the essence of things, but here and there on facts.
     I am not a professional in the field, but on the occasion of a certain project I had the opportunity to get to know the field and the people who work in it, as well as learn the complex of problems related to training, licensing and supervision in the field. My impression is that the direction of the medical establishment, the committee of experts and the regulator is to maintain the separation between conventional medicine and the proper professions included in what is known as alternative/complementary medicine. Personally, I think that this direction is correct, under the existing circumstances, since the logic of the appropriate methods in complementary medicine differs to a certain extent from the logic accepted in conventional medicine, both in the essence of the discipline and in relation to the patient and the form of perception of the problem that requires a solution (in my opinion, on the latter subject, conventional doctors have something to learn - and not that I despise conventional medicine. For me, it is the main thing, and the supplement - only 'supplementary').
     By the way, regarding the ethics of practitioners in complementary medicine - there are rotten apples in every discipline. But the whole discipline cannot be dismissed because of a few charlatans. On the other hand, I got the impression that the professional therapists had a very high ethical level, and I would wish many conventional doctors had such an ethical level. Presumably the issue of charlatanism will disappear when the planned legislation is promoted - just as happened with what used to be conventional medicine.

     As I mentioned in response 4 - there are issues that conventional medicine does not answer to one degree or another. In such cases I am afraid, contrary to your assessment - that there is no escape but to resort to appropriate methods of complementary medicine.

     Regarding the topic of 'literal herbs' - I suggest you get to know more about herbal medicine. The form and methods of referring to 'active substances' and dosages in tinctures for example - is different from that accepted in pharmacology. Each method has relative advantages and disadvantages. The relative priority - depends on the type of problem, its severity, etc.

     Regarding the claim about the validity of my words, etc. - I may not have understood you correctly. What I objected to was the claim about the therapist being a 'liar' etc.

141. Dawn,
     I agree that we know more, and probably our sons and grandsons know and will know even more. But in my opinion, the crux of the matter is not in the amount of knowledge.
     The problem is, in my opinion, that we live in a culture of ignorance, in the sense that we (I don't mean you or this or that individual, but to accumulate as a whole as a cultural subject) are in the process of burning out - the loss of the ability to perceive and evaluate information and values ​​in a rational way. And Doc - I'm not talking about education for this or that private truth, but for something more basic: the logical procedure for obtaining truth - as a value.
     The problem shoots in all directions - not only to the proliferation of vain beliefs in the New Age style, but also to the vain beliefs surrounding the perception of science as if it is a system of absolute truths, or alternatively as if it is a method that is a belief or value or equivalent to it.
     The process results in a kind of modern paganism, where this time science (or more precisely: what is perceived as scientific truth) is the idol. Thus, in the name of the 'scientific truth', as they interpret it in the irrational way, people may carpet and castrate almost every value insight and almost every field of thought. Other bodies of knowledge or culture are also prone to this kind of paganistic embodiment in our arsonist culture, since the main thing is missing: education for rationality.
     In the end, if we look carefully, we will understand, in my opinion, that the fundamental problem is a problem of education, and education for real rationality, not pseudo-rationalism.
     Newspapers, and in particular scientific journalism, should be an educational tool for rationality. To the extent that she reports, and in particular when she considers and argues - rationally - then to the same extent she fulfills her purpose. But when such a tool falls by itself, to one degree or another, into the fallacy of 'paganism' in the sense I was talking about, then it is sinful for its entire purpose. He is a device for arson if and how 'paganistic' he is.
     There are articles that are flawed - at certain points - in the aforementioned flaw. and D.L.

142. Isaac, the only thing that belongs to you is your pacifier. Everything else is mom's.

143. Soul is a word that describes hallucination, like most words.

144. Michael,
     I read the article you suggested in response 68. It's nice, but I didn't find 'proof' in it.
     If you write a new article, there will be a good basis for discussing the topic.
     What do you think?

145. by the way added -
     I would be happy if you would like to know the origin of the phrase -
     "Whoever saves a soul in Israel, it is as if he saved a whole world."
     Since your scope of curiosity does not include this type of research,
     The phrase, Hebrew, and this country, belong more to me than to you!

146. Father, I think the basis of your claim is wrong.
     This is the era of available knowledge and information, but we are the transitional generation and therefore there are many who have difficulty adapting
     Filter information instead of searching for information as they were trained.
     In elementary school I was sent to find information about ___ and today the practice is completely different and this is just one example.
     There have never been so many literates, even in remote parts of the world.
     Never before have knowledge and education been so cheap and so available. Never before have there been such fast and efficient means of transmitting information, news and knowledge. The amount of information generated increases exponentially.

     So what is your feeling that this is the Age of Ignorance? There are people who find it difficult and are afraid and lack the skill to deal with this abundance. Give them something safe and "trust me" and you'll be fine. Also, the decline of religions and the rise of secularism has removed for many the support and comfort that everything you mentioned is simply a convenient and available substitute for them.
     People are looking to believe in something.

     Now pay attention to the discourse, we are no longer arguing with you with theological tools but with pseudo-scientific tools. An alternative theory, a demonstration of partial but broad scientific knowledge in order to search for apparent proofs of beliefs. All these indicate that we are on the right path. It is true that there are struggles, there are setbacks like during the Bush era when he banned certain studies, but there are also turning points.

     If you compare the situation to 50 years ago and in such units over and over again, you will see an impressive graph of progress in knowledge and the distribution of knowledge among humans. I am convinced that in 50 years it will be the same and there will be impressive progress as well.
     We are moving into the era of knowledge available in the palm of the hand on the mobile device, anywhere and at any time and we do not come close to understanding the perceptual upheaval it produces.

     Dawn

147. Yitzchak, isn't it enough that you don't understand what I wrote, you're also disrupting my name?
     Obviously there are no souls and souls, but this is a proverb, and even if its origin is religious, it does not belong only to you but to the Hebrew language. Despite the era of postmodernism, no one will convince me to write in the New Speak style.
     You also know exactly who I was referring to, those children who, contrary to their parents' knowledge, are brainwashed when they leave school, and our collapsing country is at a loss for words and doesn't lift a finger. Then when they sever contact with the parents on the advice of the guru/rabbi/priest/charlatan healer (don't delete - there is nothing superfluous), they provide spoons and say - this is a democratic country.
     This is what the book is for.

148. Michael, two contradictory answers can be given to this:

     1. The fragility of consciousness in the physical world subject to our investigation does not prove its continued non-existence in the spiritual world which cannot be tested.

     2. Who determined that a spiritual component in consciousness requires as a necessary condition the preservation of the soul after death, or even after severe physical injury? If both components are necessary for the existence of human consciousness, it is quite possible that damage to one of them blocks the path to its existence. The Bible talks quite a lot about God, but maintains a respectful silence regarding the afterlife, and does not promise anything on the subject to its believers. Is this not a religious book according to your definition?

149. Not only nice, also generous.
     I really didn't see my first comment because I was so busy.
     Say
     The plural you use includes who?
     It seemed to me that she was addressing Bilizovsky directly,
     Do you also want to include all the "Amen" in Bilizovsky?

150. Ohad:
     I actually refer to it.
     This is not a question of experimentation.
     Even without detailing your description - the spiritual component you offer the soul has no interesting properties left.
     I explained that I was only interested in an interesting soul - that is, one that maintains something that we think is part of our identity.
     I said that I do not rule out the reincarnation of uninteresting things and I even mentioned that reincarnations of this type certainly exist like the reincarnation of the atoms that make up my body in the body of the worms that feed on it.

151. Michael, I read the article, but again, no empirical experiment can prove the non-existence of a soul, which is supposed to exist outside of physical reality. In the article you refuse to mention possible excuses for how the absolute physical dependence of the personality on the brain, proven beyond any doubt, does not contradict the concept of the soul, claiming that they are "false". But the simplest excuse, which is not clear to me how it can be scientifically refuted, is actually a repetition of the position I presented, after all, it is the claim that the human consciousness consists of two parts, where both together and each separately are necessary for its existence: a physical component that can be investigated scientifically, and a spiritual component that is not available for such an investigation. Certainly, damage to one component damages the complete consciousness, but it is not clear how it proves independence from the other component, which is, as mentioned, beyond our reach.

     I will state again that I do not advocate this view, but I am certainly willing to play devil's advocate and respect it as a legitimate view, at least until we succeed in creating a complete artificial consciousness (although even then it will of course be possible to argue that the product is only a perfect imitation of a cluster of human traits that lacks a consciousness of its own itself (as the "zombie in the machine" people claim regarding the human consciousness itself), or that the divine soul somehow rolled into the computerized consciousness, etc., etc. ad infinitum).

152. Isaac:
     You asked to be forgiven for your ignorance and stupidity.
     forgive you
     What else do you want?
     Sorry for the spelling mistakes?
     It is included in the same deal.
     What more?
     The comment I responded to is your first comment so do you want us to forgive you for not knowing how to count to one?
     OK! Also in the same deal.

153. You are so nice Michael
     So I will allow myself to ask only you - in secret!
     - I'm like what?
     - And where is my first response, maybe the other readers will also want to comment on it?

154. Elisha:
     Proof that the
     If you do not understand what a statistical test is, there is no point in arguing.

155. To Michael R.
     My statistical test is with a result of 100%. Personally, I know a few others with a similar result (and to be honest - also some that didn't). So why should I involve statistical tests in my personal medicine, if I have a satisfactory solution (even if it contradicts the statistical studies)?

156. Besides, there is a circular question here, which is formulated as follows: if alternative medicines are effective because of the placebo effect, then here comes Zion Goel and the patients a complete medicine, what's more, they spared themselves conventional medicines that often involve side effects, etc. On the other hand, if drugs that do not contain anything work so well as a placebo, why shouldn't conventional drugs also work in this way, and the conventional doctors will also give their patients sugar tablets instead of paracetamol and baking powder instead of Ritalin - and come to Zion Goel a second time.

157. Isaac:
     We have forgiven you for your ignorance and stupidity.
     We are aware that it is not your fault that you are like this.

158. Elisha:
     I said you don't know all the doctors just because you told us something about "all the doctors" telling you something.
     Doctors you don't know haven't told you anything and I guess you haven't even gone to all the doctors you know.
     Beyond that, I talked about the statistical test and contrary to your claim - not only did you not answer it, but you didn't address it at all.

159. Ohad:
     Many pacifists among the scientists tend to deceive themselves and others regarding the religion's approach to science.
     Their claims in general and Gold's claims in particular are completely wrong.
     Religions cannot exist - not only in one submission with science - but also in one submission with rational life.
     It begins with the replacement of critical thinking with faith, it continues with illusory claims about reality (and no! - to this day the Church does not accept evolution), it continues with the contemporary Pope's justification of the Church's attitude towards Galileo, and it ends with the religious coercion that washes over our world and is not averse to manipulations , torture and murder.
     And regarding the question of the existence of the soul - I suggest that you read the article I wrote on the subject and see that there is proof that it does not exist:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/

160. To Michael R.

     I think my answer actually answers your arguments, but to be specific, then I really don't know "all the doctors", but what does that have to do with the matter? I did not claim that the doctors were wrong. On the contrary, everyone said that they know the problem **and know** that it has no solution. So if I had been convinced by the studies that proved that homeopathic medicine is a scam, the child would probably still have a skin problem, and I would continue to suffer.

     By the way, for those who care about my situation today, I'm perfectly fine. I simply went to acupuncture, which brought immediate relief, and after about two months the complete disappearance of the problem, which has not returned since then. It may be that, in terms of intellectual honesty, I should have thrown the acupuncturist down all the stairs and continued to suffer to this day - because his art has been scientifically proven to be complete nonsense. It goes without saying that I am not sorry for my obviously unscientific choice.

161. Avi ,
     Sorry for the ignorance and stupidity, but -
     Who is Israel that needs to save souls?
     And actually, how do we save souls when they don't even exist?
     I have an idea -
     Maybe we'll save them to Blizovsky, I heard that they really flourish there,
     Especially when they say "Amen" to Blizovsky.

162. Father, I thank you very much for deleting the Nazis' response
     It was really inappropriate and I was ashamed that someone wrote it here.

163. In my last response I meant to answer Lucci, of course, and not as written.

164. Eddie:
     Bureaucracy and inertia exist in every human mechanism, but over time there is no doubt that my claim is correct.
     The adaptation of methods that have only recently been tested is gradual - there are doctors who apply them immediately and there are those who will never apply them and only those who will replace them after their death will apply them.
     As for alternative doctors, the situation is much worse because they usually continue to give "medicines" even after it has been clearly proven that they are ineffective or even harmful.
     Interests also exist everywhere and in the field of pseudo-medical fraud even more than in any other field.
     The question is how a person who is not in the field is supposed to act and here I am afraid that since most of the time he cannot professionally stand up to all the evidence and make a correct decision - it is better for him to base himself on traditional medicine.
     When I said that there are herbs in medicine, I didn't mean it literally.
     It is good that there are no "literal medicinal plants" in medicine, and this is because a plant is a living creature with inherent variation and the amounts of the various substances found in it vary between the different instances of the same plant.
     In traditional medicine, they try to find out what the active ingredients are in a certain medicinal plant and then give them in precise doses and in tested mixtures.
     This also avoids inter-medicinal interferences that may arise between herbs of a certain type and other herbs or between herbs and conventional medicines.

     Regarding the validity of your words (in relation to the fact that the only test is that the method works) - I completely agree and this approach emerges from everything I have written so far. The only thing I don't agree with is that you saw fit to tell me what I said myself (while creating a presentation that I didn't know it).

165. It is recommended to read the words of the evolutionary biologist Steven J. Gold regarding the debate between theology and science, or more precisely, regarding the impossibility of such a "debate" (specifically he spoke about the relatively positive attitude of the Catholic Church towards the theory of evolution).

     According to Gold, if the scientific method is defined as a method for studying physical reality, and faith as referring to what lies beyond this reality, there is no obstacle to the co-existence of these two disciplines, and even to the mutual fertilization of each other. The condition is, of course, the agreement of both parties that the scientific method is the only method for studying reality (and in this context the disdain for the "New Age" beliefs throughout the article is absolutely justified), but on the other hand, an understanding that it does not pretend to provide philosophical truths or give its opinion on abstract values ​​that are not derivative from actual physical information, and this field should be left to philosophy, including its theological subfield.

     As a side note, I will note that I myself am much closer to Dawkins' position on this matter than to Gold's, but I can at least understand the position of the opposing side, and I certainly do not agree with my father's claim that "science has proven the non-existence of a soul". How can science even refer to a concept that does not exist in physical reality by its very definition?

     And to freely quote from my deceptive memory what Gould said on this matter: "The Catholic Church accepts the fact of the occurrence of evolution, and the mechanism of natural selection, but claims that at some point during this process, God injected a spirit soul into man, thereby distinguishing him from the rest of the animal world. I myself, as a scientist dealing with the world that can be investigated, have no ability to express my opinion on this claim, and certainly I am not able to contradict it."

     So yes, according to Dawkins, even belief in fairies cannot be contradicted by science. The question is, exactly how much influence has the belief in fairies achieved to date on Western philosophy?

166. Oh Noam, do you want to tell me that we lost you??? Oh wow, what a big loss NOT.
     It is precisely because of surfers like you that the registration requirement exists, and to my delight - the method has proven itself to work. 🙂

167. Lucci,
     I completely agree with you that the time has come for a separation between 'working' professions and methods that do not work, in the context of what is known as alternative medicine. In response 4 I referred to therapeutic methods that have proven value (herbal medicine, nutrition as applied by naturopaths, flower extracts) and are considered 'alternative' because the curricula and training in medical schools in Israel have not yet absorbed them. I came to save precisely these methods from control.
     I did not refer to homeopathy in my words, (which, as I said, is not included in the standard curricula in complementary medicine schools) and I did not come to defend it, as could be clearly understood in my words.
     That's why your first words in response 22 were actually an attack on an open door.

     More on the matter of regulating the field of complementary medicine: for your information, for the past two years a special committee of experts of the Ministry of Health (the Seidel Committee) has sat on the bench, with the aim of creating a system of training (- and at an academic level precisely), as well as licensing and supervision on the subject - similar to what is found in the field of conventional medicine . From this it is clear that the Ministry of Health and the committee attach a value of truth to certain methods included in the field of alternative medicine, and take care of the issue of training, licensing and supervision accordingly.
     At the same time, the Ministry of Health began to promote legislation in the field of paramedical professions, and complementary medicine is supposed to be one of the practices that will be regulated in the future, and it is hoped that it will not be prolonged. By the way, those who are delaying the procedure are self-interested parties from the medical establishment and the business sector. These delays have no point and no substantial basis in terms of the practices themselves, which are appropriate.
     Regarding the last paragraph in response to the words - the matter of the doctors who combine complementary practices: to the best of my knowledge integrated clinics operate in some of the most respected hospitals (for example - Beilinson Hospital), and in general, as far as I can tell - the doctors who combine complementary practices are serious people. In my understanding, these are special people who do not want to 'close their heads in advance', and people of this type have always been the same people who promoted, to the extent that their intuitions proved to be successful in retrospect - the science for great achievements and new horizons. The idea of ​​'denying them the license' is a noel idea, as long as the doctors comply with the requirements of the law and inform the patient in advance of the nature of the treatment they offer and their assessment of its degree of effectiveness and the risks involved - if any.

     Michael,
     I'm afraid you didn't understand what I said. When I spoke about alternative medicine, I referred to the concept as including all practices that are not recognized today as included in conventional medicine, and as understood by humans. I meant that a blanket rejection of successful practices - is not justified, just because there are other practices that are cast on them with shortcomings and doubts and more than that - a lack of credibility - they also boast the title of 'alternative medicine'. that's it.
     By the way, there are no 'herbs' in conventional medicine even today. The subject is not taught in universities (even the usual pharmacology studies are not included in the curricula of medical schools. There is almost no mention of nutrition, let alone 'healing through nutrition'). It's really time for them to learn the subject, but contrary to your rational assumptions - conventional medicine is not reluctant to accept new practices with a 'different head' from the conventional. Mechanisms of interests, conservatism, dogmatism and sometimes also just laziness and inefficiency, flight and vision are at work here. Therefore, herbal medicine, which has been proven for a long time in practice, and recently also in impressive scientific studies, will not enter the curriculum of medical schools. Neither is nutrition, certainly not in its naturopathic form - despite its well-known virtues in practice. This is the direction of the regulator and the experts.
     Therefore, the dichotomy you seek to describe between conventional medicine as including any untested and scientifically proven practice - and alternative medicine as including any practice that has not yet been tested and scientifically proven - is without a basis in reality (again, although it is apparently rational). It turns out that practice can be very successful and even proven - and not be included in conventional medicine. Too bad, but that's the way it is...
     In light of the above, there is no excuse, and do not rush to pity those of the alternative therapists, who treat with proven practices...
     And one more thing: things that work - they 'work' simply because they... 'work', not because there is truth or falsehood in them, before the stage when someone understood them. Every good practitioner in the medical (including conventional) and paramedical fields (and even in other fields where experimentation is important - such as chemistry over the generations) knows from his own practice and that of colleagues, that there are things that work even without being proven or even understood on the face of it. If he resorts to them or suggests them - this does not mean that he is a 'liar', as long as he correctly describes the practice as 'working, even if unproven'. This means that he fulfills his duty as a faithful therapist, and does not seek to be a philosopher or a theoretic scientist who is willing for the patient to suffer only because of dogmatics derived from some 'philosophy' of science...

168. Gillian,

     I tried to enter the website, but it turns out that I need to register with you first.

     It is important that you understand, the requirement to register on the aliens and conspiracies website, from any person who is mentally mature and sane, is a clearly unreasonable requirement.

169. Gillian:
     It's really impressive!
     Do you want to tell us that you answered the claims in the book without even knowing about them?!

170. What good timing! Just for books and articles of this type, we opened a new section a few days ago on our website:

     http://www.eura.org.il/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=10&sid=a6b4ae4326ba31c0c883b4ca7b86276b

171. Elisha:
     Are you deliberately addressing me without addressing even one of my claims?
     Are you hoping that people will be tempted to believe that you replied to me just because my name appeared in your reply?

172. Elisha,
     I don't have time right now... you will probably receive my response tomorrow,
     But for now what you did is a failure called moving the goal post.

     I will expand later...

     And by the way, all the readers knew,
     It's a never ending battle.
     For each claim against complementary medicine, there will be three more in favor that have already been answered in the past.

173. To Michael R. And to a single bird

     A. The boy is now 20 years old and the phenomenon has not recurred.
     B. The homeopathic doctor (by the way, she was a qualified doctor) gave us signs that would appear in the child (among other things, a sudden worsening of the condition) that indicate that the medicine is indeed working. The signs appeared.

     third. I gave only one example. If you want another example, please:
     I had a phenomenon of anxiety attacks that I suffered from for several years. I went to my friend who is an alternative doctor, and he gave me a homeopathic powder, and told me "it will help you". I went home, and pretty much forgot about the whole thing (and continued to suffer from the phenomenon). One day during a seizure, I remembered the powder my friend had given me. I said to myself "what could be, if it doesn't help it won't hurt" and took it. Within 20 minutes the phenomenon disappeared (first time in my life). I had to remember what I did, to even understand that it was the powder that solved the problem. The box with the powder served me for several good years, then the situation calmed down.
     After two years of relaxation, one day the attack returned. I took out the box, and with reluctance and mercy I took the powder and... ?guess what

     did not work!!! (Don't know why. Maybe the body got used to it or the powder got old. Trust me, it didn't work!!)

     what comes out Precisely when I did not think at all that the medicine would help, it worked wonderfully, while when I completely believed in its power - it did not work. Exactly, but exactly, the opposite of a placebo.

     I am not presenting opinions here, I am presenting the facts as they were.

174. Michael,
     : )
     Now everyone will say "look even among the experts there are differences of opinion" this must mean that all science is wrong, maybe I should go drink some homeopathic medicine against insomnia. 🙂
     By the way, I drank all the beer (three times in three different lectures).
     And I must say that I did not fall asleep even for a moment!
     Oh yes and I'm still alive despite all the warnings on the label

     But you are right about the bloom…

175. Lucci:
     Here we actually reached a point of disagreement 🙂
     Stupid claims can always be made and that's what those who make them do.
     What sometimes cannot be done is to *disprove* them 🙂

     "Ed Hitlerum" arguments are generally stupid, but in the case of tying Nazism to the theory of evolution, it is simply a lie.
     When someone makes an irrelevant comparison to Hitler, you can always blunt his teeth with the question "Well - what do you want? - After all, you use a breathing mechanism exactly the same as Hitler's, so maybe you should stop breathing?"

176. sparrow bird,
     I can also come and say that we live inside the matrix. Can you substantiate this claim? Can I prove this claim?
     No, no, because no matter what I do, someone will come and say that this is how the matrix was designed so that no matter what we do, we will think we live inside the matrix.
     Where do I want to go?
     that first of all the burden of proof rests with the claimant, not the defender. Do you have any suggestion prove it! Don't come and say that's how it is now, try to prove that it's not true.

     Second, claims can be made that there is a way to flower them,
     A claim that there is no way to prove or disprove it is not an acceptable claim.
     Now think again about whether people have souls or not.

     Avi,
     Regarding the Nazis, I remembered that there is such a logical connection: Ed Hitler.
     that claims are made against the Nazis in order to gain power and points in an argument.

     Those who use Ed Hitlerum: this is a logical fallacy! Nothing can be compared to what the Nazis did, simply impossible, that's how bad it was!

177. sparrow bird:
     It is possible to clearly prove that there is no soul that is not part of the body and you are welcome to read my article on this matter at the following link: https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/
     Some of what may be missing in the article you will find in the responses I gave to various commenters.

     Specifically - as for the "out of body experience" you are welcome to read the Link below which shows that it is an illusion of the brain which can be induced by electrical stimulation of the appropriate point within it.

178. Elisha,
     First of all glad your child is healthy.
     Do you know what happened to your child? I'm asking seriously. Because I'm sure the homeopath who "treated" your child had no idea, he gave you a very diluted solution of some substance known to cause skin problems. If you don't agree with me please look up what homeopathy is. Do you know that diseases and especially skin problems can appear and disappear? And then back again... Do you know that symptoms of diseases can pass even though the disease is still present?
     And there are enough diseases that cause skin problems, each of them has a different cause - each of them has a different treatment and some of them are even very dangerous!

     Elisha, my friend, you made a mistake. You'll be surprised, it even has a name: Come Hook Argo Propter Hook. (copy paste to Google and enter the first result) which means that because the disease passed near what you did you linked what you did to the disease passing. Well, that's not proof of anything!
     I'm not a doctor, and I'm here from my small screen, which is probably relatively far from you, can tell you that you:
     !!!!!!!!!!!!! *** putting your child at risk *** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     You must take him to the doctor to perform all the necessary tests (which by the way can take months) to know what your child really has, lest it be too late!!!

     sparrow bird,

179. Nazis is a nice tool to use, in the State of Israel, for anything you don't like.
     It doesn't matter that my grandmother, who 'spent' 3 and a half years in Auschwitz, will be able to tell all these idiots (let me guess, they come from areas that did not suffer from the Nazis) who the real Nazis are, and it's really not like what they imagine...

180. Whatever, I already had to delete two comments that compared the science/the website/the book to Nazis. That's how it is, apparently when there is nothing rational to say, so all the schtatologists straight up recruit the Nazis to help them against the apparent coercion of science.

     I hereby notify, and I have notified all those authorized to handle comments, that any comment will be deleted and a complaint about it will be filed with the ABUSE department of that user's Internet provider. you have been warned.

181. "Give the book to those who are affected by this nonsense, and save another soul in Israel"

     For those who believe - it will not help. I know a woman who has been dying slowly for years but I am sure that one of these vain men is saving her life - while he is responsible for her body collapsing.

182. Hi Abby, thanks for the interesting review.
     Science cannot deny or confirm the existence of a soul - it does not have the tools for that. In fact, no one has the tools to confirm or deny the existence of a soul, not even any scientist in the world. But the problem with science is that it refuses to accept that not everything is measured with its tools.

     How do you explain tens of thousands of stories of the experience of being separated from the body in clinical death, including stories that were repeated by quite a few people, back in the days when knowledge about this was not widespread and the information cannot be blamed for inventing these stories? It is not at all something that can be explained. True or false - it's a matter of believing people whether they've been through it or not.

183. Elisha:
     First of all let's face the truth - you don't know all the doctors at all - in fact you don't know even one promil of all the doctors, therefore you don't know what all the doctors say.
     The second thing is that doctors are also known to make mistakes. Although much less than the charlatans, they are not vaccinated.
     A third thing is that spontaneous recovery phenomena are known (with or without placebo).
     Science accepts a claim based on an orderly test on more than one person and the fact that something here and there *seems to work* (and I emphasize the appearance because what is actually seen is that the disease was cured shortly after taking the medicine and there is no way to see that there is any causality here at all) is not a serious confirmation of the claim and only Repeating the experiment a large number of times and verifying the results statistically can be seen as confirmation.
     So who are you going to believe - the claim that you know has been shown to work once or the fact that the same experiment has been done thousands of times and most of the time it fails?

184. When my son was born he had a skin problem, which all the doctors, including specialist doctors, said had no solution and offered us medicines whose role was to somewhat improve the external symptoms. We went to a homeopathic doctor, and after tests and questions that lasted about an hour, she gave us a prescription for a homeopathic medicine. Within two weeks the symptoms disappeared completely, and have not returned to this day (now he is 20 years old).
     So who to believe? Levozovsky, who claims that the placebo drug works on a one-year-old baby, or on a baby?

185. Avi:
     It's not fair!
     Because of you I went to look for the book and it hasn't arrived in stores yet.

     Eddie:
     It seems to me that there is a certain confusion of concepts in your words.
     After all, conventional medicine also has medicinal plants.
     In general - a large part of conventional medicine was once "grandmother's medicine".
     What brought some of these drugs into the fields of conventional medicine?
     Very simple: the fact that they were tested in controlled experiments and found to be effective.
     And accordingly - what defines alternative medicine?
     It includes all treatment methods that are not conventional, or in other words - all methods that have not been tested.
     Say from now on: conventional medicine is medicine that has been tested and accordingly - alternative medicine is the one that has not been tested.
     It must be very frustrating to be a doctor of alternative medicine because as soon as a certain treatment is proven, it is taken away from the hands of alternative medicine and transferred to conventional medicine.
     Therefore, it is not impossible that in alternative medicine there are things here and there that work - simply no one knows that they work. Once they know they will become a normal medicine but until then - anyone who tells you it works is a liar.

     Guru Yaya:
     Almost everything you said is wrong.
     Everything in medicine is supposed to heal.
     The fact that it heals can be checked.
     All that traditional medicine or any other science requires is that the claims can be tested experimentally.
     Therefore there cannot be a working method of treatment that science cannot discover.
     And in relation to the soul - there are actually proofs that it does not exist and you are welcome to read my articles on this matter:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/

     Tom:
     You are also referred to what I wrote to Guru (Maharishi) Yaya.

     Israel:
     Science has not ruled out the existence of absolute truth.
     On the contrary: science assumes its existence and strives to discover it.
     It is true that no scientist will claim that the absolute truth is in his hands, but he will certainly claim that it exists.
     Maybe that's what you meant but I just wanted to clear things up.
     Regarding the existence of a soul - I recommend you read my articles on the subject (link in my response to Guru).
     There is and is proof of the non-existence of the soul (that is, a refutation of the theory of the existence of the soul).

     Hill:
     It seems to me that your misunderstanding is similar to Eddie's. Read my answer to him.
     Science does not claim to have all the truth in its hands.
     He only holds all known truth.
     Anyone who claims to have non-scientific knowledge is simply lying.
     This does not mean that what he is doing does not work, but it does mean that, contrary to his claim - he does not know if it works or not because if he knew (meaning - if he knew how to prove it in a controlled experiment) - science would accept it.

     Chest:
     No theory is sponsored by anyone.
     This is a nonsensical claim.
     The only thing that requires funding is the verification of theories in an experiment.
     No scientific institution has ever experimented with wormholes or time travel.
     In general - it seems to me that you are confusing a finger with a brain.
     And in relation to evolution "with the help" of an intelligent agent - I would like to ask you - following Noam's words - are one and another two of themselves or is an intelligent agent needed to cause this?

     scientific:
     The truth is one.
     Knowledge about it varies.
     As a principle - for many years - all the refinements of scientific knowledge almost did not exclude previous scientific knowledge.
     They did improve understanding and increase the range of predictions.
     Therefore, the matter of relativity is not relevant to the topic and we can quietly talk about the truth we know.

     There is no shortage of moments:
     See my responses to Eddy and Geva.

     Lucci:
     I write my response at the same time as reading the various responses and gradually discover that there is a lot of overlap between our words.
     It's not because I ignore your words but because I think like you.

     Boaz:
     Science is not a religious belief and unlike all religious beliefs it adapts theories to reality and not the other way around.
     The only axioms of science - apart from the laws of logic - are the results of the experiment.
     These do not change.
     You are lashing out at science which cannot prove that one is not zero.
     Beauty - really a huge disadvantage of science.
     This, by the way, puts all the alternatives to science in the right light because all these alternatives are equivalent in one way or another to the claim that one equals zero or that "yes" is "no". Is it surprising to you that in this situation I prefer science?
     In general, this strategy used by the people of the new age in discrediting science by blaming it on the "blame" of progress is astonishingly stupid.
     The claim "you don't know everything and therefore you know nothing" is equally stupid.
     What kind of coercion are you talking about?

186. Lucci:
     As if you expressed exactly my opinions (everything I didn't have the patience to write)...
     Unfortunately, it is probably not possible to really convince the "believers".
     Thanks !!!

187. All science is flawed and full of black holes
     Science claims that it can only explain 5% of the universe
     And if that's the case, he launches attacks on the new era
     When you came out denied no

188. Boaz,

     What a misunderstanding...
     Science is not faith. Science is ** a method for the study of truth **.
     The scientific method proves itself time and time again, and since it has already been repeated many times on the site, I will not do it again, but I will recommend you to be interested and delve into the subject.

189. Noam,
     By the way, I don't want it to sound like I don't want supervision, supervision is good.
     I want them to check all things like the Ministry of Health checks drugs that go on the market and/or foods.
     I want if there is something that works to make it official.
     As soon as they prove it I will be the first to use it.
     But until it's proven, you can't use it!

190. Boaz,
     You cannot come and say that because we do not know how to predict such and such phenomena, say earthquakes, then the science is not correct.
     The scientific method proves things with the help of experiments and by way of negation, experiments that reflect the reality in which we live. Science is the closest thing we have to reality.
     There are many things that science cannot predict and/or has been able to prove. But we are getting better.
     Let's say earthquakes, today it is impossible to predict earthquakes, but there is a lot of research on the subject and a lot of additional and new insights, and there are scientists who did succeed to a certain extent in predicting earthquakes. It gets better. Just like the weather forecast. In the future we will also be able to predict earthquakes. not today. And that is the beauty of science.

     And the big difference between science and religious belief is that science stands by its mistakes. Science is always updating and always correcting
     itself, that's the whole beauty of scientific tools.
     Don't forget that faith is not updated. Belief stays stuck in place, and belief will always twist reality to fit belief and not the other way around.

191. "Is there really only one"?

     After all, all science is based on axioms, and axioms are assumptions that cannot be proven but only assumed to be true. Who can prove to me that one is not zero? Who will prove that he is not no? You may be able to prove it with any scientific tools, but it will be meaningless. Like using the word "science" to explain the word "science".

     Science is faith. A faith that claims to explain the world but remains unanswered against countless questions. Just as science succeeds in predicting hurricanes before they happen, so it is surprised again and again by many other phenomena. So what makes it the "one truth"?

     I think there is a lot of arrogance and conceit in the attitude presented in this article. Science has stood up to its mistakes many times in the past and even things that are clear to us today will still be proven to be incorrect (from a scientific point of view). Coercion is wrong and has no place, neither in science nor in other faiths.

192. Noam,
     After they have already checked the drugs and put everything under supervision, they will realize that there will be almost nothing left of it. And what remains, if at all, will become medicine.
     And we will no longer need naturopaths, homeopaths or chiropractors.

193. there is no scarce moment,
     The use of the term "complementary medicine" is incorrect in my opinion.
     You have to distinguish between medicine and everything else, if it complements medicine why isn't it medicine?

     what am i trying to say Plants/ingredients/procedures that have been proven to work are already in the definition of medicine. There are enough plants that are also sold in pharmacies, such as echinacea, propolis, aloe vera, etc., these are not drugs, these are plants that have proven effects, so they can be treated as a medicine for everything (maybe not particularly strong / maybe cheaper).

     Anything else that has not yet been proven and/or is in research processes cannot be considered medicine. Certainly not "complementary medicine".
     And sure and sure that things that have been unequivocally proven not to work, or have no effect other than the placebo effect, not only should they not be called medicine, as far as I'm concerned they should be outlawed.
     People today come and sell you things claiming that it works and that it is healthy, but basically they are selling you 100% water and nothing else. These people are charlatans, cheaters and thieves.
     They rely on the fact that not everyone is a doctor, and that science is not taught in schools: biology, anatomy. They rely on logical fallacies like confirmation bias, label it "complementary medicine" and make money off of it at the expense of others.

194. there is no scarce moment,

     The only problem I see with complementary medicine is the lack of supervision - both of its drugs and of those who practice it.

     Today, anyone can put up a sign and call themselves a naturopath, a Chinese medicine expert and more. The same "expert", who may not have studied even a day, will offer innocent people a selection of "medicines" that have not been properly tested, will charge money for his services, and can cause great harm to the patient, either directly or indirectly (for example by recommending to avoid conventional medicine ).

     Complementary medicine should come under supervision, medicines should be tested for a number of years before they are offered to anyone, and the practitioners in the field should be under supervision, which defines the time of specialization, permitted areas of practice, as well as the issuance of a practice license.

     We demand (and rightfully so) very strict requirements regarding the level of doctors, the safety of conventional drugs, while in the field of complementary medicine, none of the above requirements exist. This is stupidity and irresponsibility.

195. I actually liked another book that came out in Hebrew:

     "The Word of the Experts" / Christopher Serf and Victor Nevsky.

     It's a shame Shiki Mänschenfreund, the magician Randy, Seth Shostak, the producer of the screen protectors (and the prophet of the time of Mitzvah) and Michael Shermer, the journalist and lover of the alien dolls, did not read it...

     The above book is highly recommended to all those who consider themselves omniscient and enlightened, and who consider everyone else around them ignorant...

     Hanan Sabat
     http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL

     post Scriptum. - I assume that some of the commenters here haven't read Till Eulenspiegel in a long time (if at all)...

196. Geva Noam and Luchi - the article points in the right direction, but one should pay attention to an important nuance, which is that there are many things that are considered "complementary medicine" such as medicinal plants and Nahir because they have an effect on the body (medicines use exactly the same ingredients but are processed) for the better and they are effective but XNUMX are not the scientific mainstream. There are things that are worth scientific testing, and even if they have not been tested empirically over long-term meta-analyses, it is clear that they have a positive effect and will eventually enter scientific backing.

197. Reminds me of Carl Sagan's Haunted World, which tried to do the same thing, only for Americans.

     In particular, I recall one of his most poignant quotes:

     "We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster"

198. Father, this is not a matter of livelihood, because I already told you on the phone when we talked that no local does anything for the sake of money, because money is blinding and the 'bright' cannot be purchased not even in billions, not billions and it cannot be bought.
     Anger comes from insults to the sanctity of the Spirit and their names.
     Regarding all the other fields, if you don't understand, learn, investigate in depth and understand something, talk before you categorize and drag others into unnecessary categories.
     Keep your guards as far as "them": and also learn "Hebrew" for a change.

199. Indeed a wonderful article about a book that in my opinion is a must in every household and not only does it demonstrate the age of ignorance (i.e. astrology, creationism, etc.) any (for example on the subject of UFOs). The writer goes on and chews to the bone sayings and statements that lack any scientific/research/factual basis.

     Before someone accuses others of ignorance, it is always good for him to take a mirror and put it in front of his face. Skepticism is an extremely important field, but debunkerism (I allowed myself to take the role of Avshalom Kor and use the word DEBUNKER) is just as extreme as anyone who denies a certain subject without even trying to investigate it - that is, religious people.

     The list of personalities mentioned by Lucci is well known (Randy the magician, Seth Shuskett who produces the screen savers and prophecies about the discovery of extraterrestrials and Schermer the journalist) and the only problem with them is that they are great at making arguments and making statements, but are not able in most cases to indicate what and on what sources they are based - simply Very - because there are none. Randy the magician, Shostak the prophet and Shermer the journalist (a fan of plastic alien dolls), experts in putting on a show in front of an audience who, just like the ignorant people who believe in astrology or divine creation, believe them without batting an eyelid.

     Maybe it's better to get off the tree of beliefs and not accuse others of ignorance before everyone checks themselves. It is very easy to turn scientific research into a scientific belief, which is no less dangerous than any other religious sect.

     I actually recommend a book that was recently published in Hebrew and is called "The Talk of the Experts - Predictions That Didn't Exactly Come True" / Christopher Serf and Victor Nevsky, which contains a collection of sayings of the world's greatest experts in various fields, which turned out to be nothing more than prophetic statements without dawn and delusions (although some of them were backed up by scientific studies whose power is only good on paper).

     Hanan Sabat
     http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL

     post Scriptum. - It is good in these hot days when Randy casts a spell on the audience, Shermer plays with alien dolls, Seth Shostak makes prophecies about the discovery of extraterrestrials in the universe and all kinds of "enlightened" people write about the ignorance of others, to remember Dante's words which are very appropriate for anyone who considers himself omniscient and who is trapped in a circle The infinite fixation - a circle that in most cases only has an entrance and has no exit:
     “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate” …

200. A short and unfocused search brought up about 14,900 academic articles on homeopathy -
     And you claim that it has been proven - "proven" - scientifically that the method does not work... hmm, interesting, how brave of you.
     Did you rely on a specific article or did you do a review or a full one?
     - Without an iota of shame imposing knowledge and decision that there is no science in these things! And what's more, it's charlatanry -
     Really knowledgeable! Not a scientist but a scholar.
     About acupuncture - or all Chinese medicine, has it been conclusively scientifically proven there as well? again.. what is there to say? Really creative

     Reflexology - also as part of traditional Chinese medicine
     1.http://www.reflexology-research.com/Abstracts.html
     http://www.reflexology-research.com/control.htm

     Chinese medicine - quite a bit from Wikipedia that you kindly sent people to.
     1. The effectiveness of acupuncture remains controversial in the scientific community, and a review by Edzard Ernst and colleagues in 2007 found that the body of evidence was growing, research is active, and that the "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions"
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine#Scientific_view

     Homeopathy and research
     1. http://www.homeopathy-israel.co.il/Index.asp?CategoryID=99
     2. http://www.notes.co.il/rakheli/40308.asp
     http://www.notes.co.il/rakheli/40202.asp

201. Yes, I would love to, not relevant to the conversation.
     Thanks.

202. Lucci – I replied to Amelia, sorry I forgot to mention it.
     If you wish, I can delete these two comments of yours, which of course stem from the mistake.
     Indeed, I am the editor of the site and also the writer of the specific article.

203. Avi,

     Respectable is someone who is respected.
     I'm curious to know who the respected astrologer is, even though she compares the site to Nazis.

     Why should her identity be kept a secret?

204. Now you suddenly recognize yourself by your real name?

     If the site upsets you and the truth hurts your livelihood, you have hundreds of alternatives on sites that publish horoscopes left and right. why are you angry Leave us alone, isn't it a shame for your health?

205. hahaha... out of enthusiasm and nerves I didn't connect you with the author of the article (and the editor of the website for that matter)
     : )

206. I did delete the comment that compared the site to Nazis. This is a response from a respected writer and astrologer in Israel (if there is such a thing as a respected astrologer...), who is apparently angry that her livelihood is being harmed.

207. I will respond to some of the things here,
     First Eddie:
     Regarding your first paragraph, no one ruled out plants here, or other natural substances. Please don't forget that all (or almost all) medicines started out as plants and were perfected over the years into something more effective and safer.
     There are enough studies on all kinds of plants and other "natural" things, everything needs to be investigated in a scientific study (!) to see if it works or not, and only at the end of the research reach the final and unequivocal conclusion that it works / doesn't work.
     The article was about things that have already been scientifically proven not (!) to work. For example: acupuncture, homeopathy, reflexology, healing with magnets, etc.
     Regarding your second paragraph Eddie, homeopathy should not be a profession! Homeopathy is pure charlatan!!! And for my part, she should be outlawed. Why? Because homeopathy was found to be no more effective than placebo, what's more, the basis for homeopathy is fundamentally incorrect (regarding diluting a substance in water). But people still buy it, use it and worst of all prefer it to proven modern medicine!
     Eddie, regarding your last paragraph, the fact that there are doctors who separately open an alternative department for their profession or something like that: this is charlatanism!!!! These doctors should have their licenses revoked. These doctors realized that there is a lot of money in the stupidity of people who believe in these things, and confiscated the "complete income". They only further harm and unjustly legitimize alternative medicine.

     To the respondents Avi Blizovsky and Tom:
     We are not dealing with God, love, taste or smell, we are dealing with medicine. We deal with diseases and medicines whose effects on the human body are measurable, quantifiable (from the word quantity), and most importantly, scientifically measurable. Anything that is supposed to cure a disease whose effects are known, proven and can be measured and scientifically reviewed - should itself undergo scientific review! Medicine that does not pass scientific scrutiny is pagan medicine! And I make a generalization: homeopathy, acupuncture, reflexology, astrology, magnet healing, detoxification, cupping, ear candles (very common in Britain and Australia by the way) and many more.
     All of the things I've put out there right now are things that have been scientifically proven not to work (not things that haven't been proven to work yet: things that have been proven not to work! Period!) and people are still using them, and people are still making money off of other people's ignorance!

     To Israel's response:
     It's nice that you started your response with a classic "ad hominem" against the author of the article (search on Wikipedia if you don't know what that is)
     And for the rest of your words, as I wrote even before this, these things have been completely ruled out, and therefore the writer of the article denies these things in a comprehensive and complete way.
     Because enough already! How many times do I have to explain to you, it doesn't work! Every time someone else comes with the same claims. enough! Understand this is pagan medicine!

     There is medicine based on science, there is nothing else!
     Anything else is not medicine and cannot call itself medicine!

     "science based medicine"
     Steven Novella

     By the way, there was a commenter here whose message was deleted and on the other side (well done to the editor of the site) who compared science to the Nazis.
     These opinions by the way come from a movie produced by Ben Stein called EXPELLED.
     Look it up on Wikipedia too...
     This person is a charlatan! Cheater! We can! And a complete fool! He released a film whose entire purpose is to show that Hitler did everything he did because of Darwin's theory of evolution and his logic goes like this:
     Evolution = Darwin = Hitler = Murder
     Hence, evolution is an evil that should not be believed in.

208. Geva,

     Your criticism of science is weird and strange. Does the fact that there are many things that are still not understood, and science has no explanation, indicate its lack of success?
     Science has never claimed to know everything (unlike the various religions). Science claims only one thing: the scientific method is the only method that leads to the study of the truth, in an objective way, and in a process of structured self-criticism.

     One of the criteria for the success of a certain theory is the extent of its development and progress over time.

     Science is developing at an impressive pace, all you have to do is look left and right and see its wonderful achievements, in almost every field.
     In contrast, teachings such as astrology, crystals, cards, spells of various kinds, and more, have existed for thousands of years, but have not changed or progressed even to a small extent, throughout those thousands of years.
     Their existence to this day does not indicate their truth, but a mental need to believe in things that lack any factual basis.

209. Hezi,

     A. The mechanism proposed by the theory of evolution is a mechanism that works by itself, under the influence of environmental pressures. There is no need for an intelligent agent to bring about these processes, and therefore there is nothing to hide either - you are drifting into another delusional conspiracy theory.

     B. What did the poet mean? Another conspiracy???

     third. The theories of time travel, wormholes have not been confirmed, and it is doubtful that they will be confirmed soon, but they are completely different from superstitions because they are based on scientific theories, with mathematical foundations, and in principle can be refuted.

210. What conversation level?! Maybe someone should say a few things to your face

211. Kudos to Idan who tells the truth to his face.
     Only truth is relative and our truth today will not be
     The truth is in, say, a decade or two and it certainly won't be the same
     A truth that prevailed, for example, 70 or eighty years ago, so about which one
     Are we actually talking?

212. to Israel A mistake in your hands, all these things were checked and only then ruled out, but the news of this negation fails to penetrate to the general public due to the hostility of the mass media to science. There are many reasons for this, such as for example that many of the workers there have humanitarian backgrounds who failed in mathematics and have since been afraid to try to understand something more complicated scientific.
     The scientist is one of the only factors that does not beg the superstitious believers, and tells them the truth to their face.
     If we do not go for a complete denial of all this nonsense we will have to devote our whole life to studying it, only to find out in the end that it is nonsense. Why not find out from the start? Time, as they say in one of the TV commercials, is our most precious thing.

213. See Challenge: What is a thought?

214. Reminds a bit of two recommended books: Top Secret and Bad Science

215. A- Evolution is a fact. The debate is whether it happened "on advice" or by a rational factor.
     The "scientists" continue to hide this fact,
     And they talk about and power between evolution and creationists as if there are only two schools of thought.

     in more than a year ago,
     I commented here on an article about Einstein's theories.
     I claimed that a satellite was sent specifically to verify the theory.
     NASA declined to release the results of this test,
     And continues to ignore the project that cost the American taxpayer many millions.

     C- Theories that are pulled from the finger, such as theories about time travel and about "wormholes"
     are no less bad than superstitions,
     Because they are funded by taxpayers' money around the world.

216. No wonder there are fools who believe in spirits and demons, astrology and other vegetables. As long as a significant part of the population believes in the existence of God, a higher power, aliens and other such nonsense, which are considered legitimate beliefs. The need to believe in something metaphysical is a mental need that stems from a certain personality structure. And this need will exist forever as long as children are born to parents who believe in vanity and therefore mold their children's minds accordingly.

217. "In the test of the result, science is the only body of knowledge that succeeded in its work, a fact - tripling the human life expectancy in just one hundred years, which thousands of years of prayers, astrology, spells, etc., did not do."

     Blizovsky, is this the result test?
     Have you already understood the forces of gravitational waves? Did you quantify them into a formula? Did you find the model (formula) of happiness, love? Why scientifically are there more wars? Why is there poverty? Stupidity? Is there already an agreement on the greenhouse effect? Waves from the sun or maybe the carbon...

     One of the important flags of the body of science is in its statement that it knows what it does not know.

     What science knows should not be taken away from him - (until it is disproved of course...genius and unique! As it is not flat).
     But one must recognize the lack of knowledge and say that this or that thing "is not scientific", or "has not been tested scientifically..." This statement does not disprove the thing (at least not realistically), graphology, astrology, prayer or any other name or phenomenon that survived and survives Natural selection exists. The reason for this can be: as stupid, hidden, and mysterious as it may be - but it exists. You can say that from a scientific point of view this is not supported, is not tested, is not scientific - but in my opinion, it is unnecessary and one should be careful in saying that what is not scientifically supported is not true or stupid (tutologies according to you). Are you one of the followers of the Church of Science? Dawkins might cluck his tongue.
     August Comte and his teachings are stupid? Does Paul Carl Feyerabend have the right to speak? Maybe chase our old friend Popper?

     As for your comment on alternative medicine, here the science has not failed, but the politics.
     Go to the HMO clinics in your home for a short scientific survey and check who exactly accessed where. Sit like a fly on the wall in an orthopedic conversation presenting the dry facts... soak up like a damp cloth the attitude of the doctor, the attitude of "science" towards those who do not benefit from it, those who have engraved on their bodies that longevity is suffering, maybe then, if science wills, (psychology is considered ?...not really) I think you will perhaps begin to see and understand that there is science and there is practice that does not always succeed in its sublime realization. You may not find a logical basis in soul, intelligent design, and astrology, but you will scientifically understand their origin, efficacy, and intelligence and ability. Because being here in any culture, at any time and on any continent has logic and basis.

     Science, politics, tautology or statistics.

218. This is exactly the point, there is no need to go into details, because there are no details. The reason I mentioned the Indians is because they wrote it in the best way (by poetry).
     I have a question for you - can love and beauty be physically quantified? Is the energy of creation, the ability to invent things, based in thoughts or do they emerge in the mind of a creator? What is a thought?
     All these are spiritual things that are beyond material existence. I am also a scientist like most of the website visitors, and for years I thought exactly like you and tried to prove to the whole world that spirituality is nonsense. The main victim was me, because without an emphasis on spirituality in life, a person cannot flourish and create.
     As a rule coined by Socrates at the time, and has already become a cliché in the mouth of every poetic poet - the only thing we really know is that we know nothing. I suggest you always leave room for doubt, and go out and experience new things. St. Augustus said that he was undermining the foundations of his belief in the BXNUMXD religion that he could believe.
     I'm completely with you about the waste of human resources, but bottom line - you only live once and everyone should do what's best for them, even if it means praying to God from morning to night...

219. Forgive me dear reporter, but you sound too self-confident to be a real scientist or intellectual. A little modesty really won't hurt you. As far as I understand, science has long not claimed absolute truth, but research and result subject to acceptance of axioms.
     I have not yet heard that science "denies the existence of a soul". I also don't think calling something "stupid" is an acceptable way to conduct a discussion.
     Full disclosure: personally, I don't believe in clairvoyance or astrology, but from here to the complete denial of anything that hasn't been tested with scientific tools, the road is very far.

220. to Tom

     Since there is no logical basis for the soul, for intelligent planning and astrology (as well as for all the other schutologists) there is no need to go into details, since otherwise I would have to spend all my days in the Beit Midrash, then go a second life to a mosque and a third life to a Buddhist monastery, and a fourth life to a Christian monastery... and so on ( completely random order). But what to do, you only live once.
     A lot of nice people wrote a lot of things, starting with the ancient Greeks, through our ancestors, and ending with the Chinese, Indians and Japanese. Not everything someone thinks is worthy of scrutiny. The basic concept is that there is nothing that cannot be physically quantified, so all this fuss is unnecessary. It's just a shame that they harm our important living human resource - manpower, and engage him in nonsense instead of letting him engage in creativity, literature, scientific inventions, etc.

221. Father, always remember that if you haven't experienced it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
     Just a few days ago I read an article on your website about the senses, and how they represent to us the world which is nothing but forms of colorless matter, sound and sound.
     The human body is also a form, resurrected and returned to the earth.
     Soul is a word, meant to describe something that cannot be described in words. I am convinced that if you are interested in the depth of Indian philosophy (assuming you find a good teacher), you will prove that there are things in this world that cannot be described in words (such as the experience of existence itself), which people have given different names to try to describe them, such as: God, Spirit, Allah, Jesus and so'.
     The interpretation given to these terms over the years has been distorted from the true intention, and this is to try to contain the infinite knowledge and experience into a language, which is limited and not infinite.
     I wish you to experience the experience of infinite existence (Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it), because there is no greater happiness than that.

222. The only problematic assumption is on the part of those who support the anti-scientific arguments - who think that science should deal with all their nonsense, and if scientists don't have the time, or the desire to deal with nonsense, then they (the mystics) are right, and because there are so many believers in mysticism who invent new kinds of nonsense 2012) After all, scientists will not have time to make progress on the really important things. In addition, the claim that God is found in gaps that science has not yet reached (and there are always such gaps, whether real or imaginary) is a well-known claim from other fields - not only the mind, but also the argument of unbreakable mechanisms such as the shotun that were revealed to be completely freakable.
     In the test of the result, science is the only body of knowledge that succeeded in its work, a fact - tripling the human life expectancy in just one hundred years, which thousands of years of prayers, astrology, spells, etc. did not do.

223. I think there is a problematic assumption in the article, something, that what is scientific is true. Science has limitations. He investigates certain things, and other things he must leave in the hands of others of importance.
     It is not possible, for example, to imagine an experiment whose results would disprove the existence of a soul separate from a body (hereafter I will use the term soul to describe a non-material soul). It would be correct to say that science demonstrates many processes that we attribute to the soul, as physical. But there is a big gap between the mind is not part of science, and the mind does not exist. A knowledge of the limits of science will not harm its ambassadors.

224. Indeed not for nothing, they know where is the money

225. I haven't read the book, but I'm not sure what the author has against alternative medicine.
     I don't think there is a serious person who would deny the medicinal properties of well-known herbs. Scientific research in recent years points to new discoveries and this profession is developing as an effective medicine.
     It seems to me that insights into healing in nutrition as applied by naturopaths - prove themselves well in the therapeutic field.
     Treatments using flower extracts also seem to be effective in solving emotional problems.
     Treatments in Chinese medicine also seem to be effective up to a certain limit.

     And another priest...

     I am not aware of studies about the effectiveness of homeopathic methods, but if there is criticism of them - this should not necessarily apply to other therapeutic methods, just because they are not conventional. Homeopathy is a profession in itself, and is not included in the complex of naturopathy as a standard profession.
     It should also be remembered that there are areas in which conventional medicine does not have a satisfactory answer to the problems, if at all, and certain methods of alternative medicine do.
     For example: there are many types of allergies. A significant number of them do not have adequate conventional treatment, if at all. On the other hand, certain methods in alternative medicine (for example: the AIPAC method) give them a reasonable answer, and sometimes a highly effective answer. We don't always understand how it works, but with practical successes it's a bit hard to argue (in the future, if we don't 'close our heads' in advance, and are ready to investigate seriously - maybe we'll also understand how it 'works').

     And there are many more examples.

     By the way, in recent years there are conventional doctors who study and use certain alternative methods, each according to his personal preference, alongside the usual practice in the clinic, and for good reason.

226. What's more, no one knows me!!!
     Which is really annoying

227. More dangerous than these are the clever pseudo-scientists who think that if only Einstein had listened to them he would have discovered new insights.

228. There is no skeptical organization in Israel, people in Israel do not know what skepticism is.
     You don't learn in school what science is and what it means, you don't experience a proper scientific experiment.
     There is no information in the country who Michael Shermer, Phil Plate, James Randi, Steven Novella and others are.
     It just annoys me!!!! is very.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.