Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 225

"...Who Taught Man the Use of the Pen..."

aamna - Hello there  :)
I was just wondering because I thought art was haram in Islam, in fact that's one of the reasons that I want to leave it. I love Art but it's obvious that it isn't allowed in Islam - well, of animate things anyway. So how did you balance? Do you just not draw animate things? Thanks.
Muhammad Rasheed - Hi, aamna
It's funny that you said it was "obvious" that art isn't allowed in Islam, considering that there's nothing in the Qur'an saying it is forbidden.  The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would never command anything that Allah Himself didn't command.
aamna - That's how I justified it to myself. But you can't simply choose to ignore the hadiths. They come from the most reliable and authentic sources. 
Hadith 7.838 (Sahih Bukhari) We were with Masruq at the house of Yasar bin Numair. Masruq saw pictures on his terrace and said, "I heard 'Abdullah saying that he heard the Prophet saying, "The people who will receive the severest punishment from Allah will be the picture makers.'" (Narrated by Muslim)
Hadith 7.846 (Sahih Bukhari) (the wife of the Prophet) I bought a cushion having pictures on it. When Allah's Apostle saw it, he stopped at the gate and did not enter. I noticed the signs of hatred (for that) on his face! I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I turn to Allah and His Apostle in repentance! What sin have I committed?" He said, "What about this cushion?" I said, - I bought it for you to sit on and recline on." Allah's Apostle said, "The makers of these pictures will be punished (severely) on the Day of Resurrection and it will be said to them, 'Make alive what you have created.'" He added, "Angels do not enter a house in which there are pictures."(narrated by Ayesha).
Hadith 7.840 (Sahih Bukhari) Allah's Apostle returned from a journey when I had placed a curtain of mine having pictures over (the door of) a chamber of mine. When Allah's Apostle saw it, he tore it and said, "The people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah's creations."  So we turned it (i.e., the curtain) into one or two cushions. (Narrated by Ayesha)
There are many, many more hadith on this topic. If you don't believe these are authentic, then you probably don't follow hadith because Sahih Bukhari is the most trusted source of hadiths in the world. Yes, the Quran doesn't mention it, but the Prophet is the example to follow and he has made it very clear to stay away from it, which is why I used the word 'obvious'.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's not a empty justification; it's reason and logic applied to scholarship.  The hadith are not the Word of God, and again, the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) only commanded what Allah Himself commanded.  If Allah didn't command it, and the hadith is actually authentic, then the prophet's words were from Muhammad the man, and were only suggestion, and were expressed that way.  If the words were expressed as a command, yet there are no verses or anything in the Qur'an to back them up, then they were in fact unauthentic hadith that some conman made up in the past, and pretended to be hadith.  
I follow hadith, but I do not do so as a fool.  The hadith do not rank higher than the Qur'an for a reason, and should be properly scrutinized with a discerning mind. 
aamna - Yes, the hadith does not rank higher than the Quran but it doesn't say that Art is allowed in the Quran either. The prophet (saw) always talked about the topics that weren't addressed. 
Also, he wasn't a mere man. The prophet (saw) is Allah's favourite creation. His name is beside his on the throne. His hadith should be taken very seriously (obviously the authentic ones - Sahih bukhari and Muslim). Not following the perfect example, means going astray. He made his rule on art really clear and he is the best in Allah's eyes. You cannot love and follow Allah without loving and following the Propeht, because Allah clearly loves him.
Muhammad Rasheed  –  aamna wrote: “Yes, the hadith does not rank higher than the Quran but it doesn't say that Art is allowed in the Quran either.” 
So, if Allah never said that art wasn't allowed then the prophet definitely never said it either.  He only commanded what his Lord commanded of us.

aamna wrote: “The prophet (saw) always talked about the topics that weren't addressed.”
Sure, but he only used his authority as messenger on those items that Allah commanded of us. 
aamna wrote: “Also, he wasn't a mere man.”
Of course he was.  All of the prophets were mere men.  Allah said that if the earth were populated with angels, then He would've used angels as His prophets instead.  
aamna wrote: “The prophet (saw) is Allah's favourite creation.”
What are you basing that on?  Allah said the believers are not to show favoritism between the prophets, as that brotherhood all had the same mission.
aamna wrote: “His name is beside his on the throne. His hadith should be taken very seriously (obviously the authentic ones - Sahih bukhari and Muslim).”
The authentic hadith are the ones that reflect what Allah said, and that reflect the objective known facts about the prophet's personality.  It doesn't matter whose name is labeled upon them.
aamna wrote: “Not following the perfect example, means going astray.”
I agree 100%.
aamna wrote: “He made his rule on art really clear and he is the best in Allah's eyes.”
The prophet Muhammad made no rules that Allah didn't command first.
aamna wrote: “You cannot love and follow Allah without loving and following the Propeht, because Allah clearly loves him.”
You cannot love and follow Allah while worshiping His messenger.  I wish you all would stop it.  It is offensive to those of use who worship the One God alone.
aamna - Excuse me, I don't worship the prophet. I'm not even a Muslim. I'm just saying, it's pretty obvious how important Muhammad is in the religion of Islam. He's basically the perfect muslim. Thought that was well known among muslims. Well, you're doing better than me I guess anyway. Islam is man-made to me anyway.
Muhammad Rasheed - aamna wrote: “Excuse me,  I don't worship the prophet. I'm not even a Muslim. I'm just saying...”
Oh.  Well, you were arguing pretty hard from a quasi-pagan stance, that was starting to sound the way the Christians sound over their deified messenger.
aamna wrote: “...it's pretty obvious how important Muhammad is in the religion of Islam.”
The second Pillar of Faith is "Belief in the Prophets."  That is very important.  Why?  Because the prophets were tasked the mission of receiving the sacred revelation and instructing us in scripture & wisdom so that we would have the opportunity to be saved.  That's the sole reason why they are important... all of them, equally.  They are the ones responsible for giving you the message from the One that made you.
aamna wrote: “He's basically the perfect muslim. Thought that was well known among muslims.”
That is precisely why it is important that we recognize him as "merely a man."  It means that if he can do it, we all can do it, and there is no excuse for failure.  If you know the rules and are able-bodied, then if you find yourself in hell you have only yourself to blame and none other.
aamna wrote: “Well, you're doing better than me I guess anyway. Islam is man-made to me anyway.”
I suggest you repent, surrender to your Lord and save yourself from a Fire whose fuel is men & stones.  Attain paradise instead and know Bliss, aamna.  Although the Path can be a hassle sometimes, this will be better for you than what you are thinking.
aamna - I've tried but I see so many mistakes and flaws in Islam. In the Quran itself, it seems like it was made to appeal to the Arab men of the seventh century. The description of heaven sounds boring, and the description of hell sounds too cruel for the Most Loving God to subject his creation to forever. It just doesn't add up. Have you never had doubts?
Muhammad Rasheed - aamna wrote: “I've tried but I see so many mistakes and flaws in Islam.”
lol Like what?  Why are you so sure that what you see is a mistake?  That sounds arrogant to me.  Would you know more than an omniscient being that creates universes from scratch?  Could you hope to match such a being’s insight into what moves the humans that He created?
aamna wrote: “In the Quran itself, it seems like it was…”

“Seems?” 
“Seems” doesn’t sound like sure knowledge, aamna.  Are you really going to risk hellfire for what "seems” like something, when human illusionists like Criss Angel and David Copperfield routinely trick you into thinking things “seem” one way over another?  Curious.  A human being’s got to know his limitations if he hopes to reach at least Step One of sure knowledge. 
aamna wrote: “…made to appeal to the Arab men of the seventh century.”
Why wouldn’t it?  They were the ones chosen to receive the final message of sacred scripture, and as such, their burden was to master it so they could teach it to the world.  Naturally the teacher needed to fully grasp it in his own tongue, using imagery that would drive it home to him best so he would know how to translate it to you.
aamna wrote: “The description of heaven sounds boring…”
Heaven is a spiritual realm that you have zero experience with.  The descriptions in the Qur’an are only physical world analogies that basically say that it will be like the best stuff you can imagine (remember He was talking to the Arabs) but better than that x1,000,000,000,000 and will last forever!  So just replace the stuff that a 7th century Arab would like with stuff a 21st century person would like from your part of the world.  Now you still get a tiny glimpse of what paradise would be like. 
aamna wrote: “…and the description of hell sounds too cruel for the Most Loving God to subject his creation to forever. It just doesn't add up.”
If that is truly how you feel about it… that hell sounds TOO horrifying… then will you not feel stupid if you actually find yourself there?  If you’ve had ample time to contemplate how horrifying this torture realm will be (and again, replace stuff that sounds terrible to a 7th century Arab to the worst stuff you can imagine) then why would you possibly call God’s bluff and risk actually being banished to hell??? 
Is that logical to you?
aamna wrote: “Have you never had doubts?”
Of course.  Am I not human?  Those doubts are the very temptations that beckon me to hell that my Lord commanded me to avoid so that I can go to paradise instead.
Are you actually taking heed to the doubts?  Why would you do that?  Do you hate yourself?

aamna - I don't doubt there's a creator, I'm certain of a God existing who created everything. I'm just having trouble with Islam being from him. The book just isn't so miraculous. It's nothing out of the ordinary work of man. I'd expected more out of the one true God. He didn't mention any great scienitifc claim, no evidence; nothing that would separate his work from a normal man's. His ideas are just taken from what was common at that time. There is so much doubt around it and why would a God punish someone for using their logic against it? Why would a perfect book be so ambiguous that anyone can interpret anything from it - even though its supposed to be clear? There is nothing special about the Quran. To me, it's incredibly boring to read and its main basis is fear of hellfire. The subjects jump constantly and I have read better work. To be honest, no I haven't read the Arabic form and the Quran in its true entirety and I have no right to state my opinion as fact but I can say that I dislike the message. I do NOT agree with wife beating, or men being equivalent to two women. I disagree with the marriage of young girls. I disagree with slavery - no matter how nice you are to them, it should not be allowed at all. As a developed species, we've overcame such things and I feel it's delusional to keep practising those things. It's an obstacle in our development. There was a time for the Quran and I hate to say it, but I think it's over.
Muhammad Rasheed - aamna wrote: “I don't doubt there's a creator, I'm certain of a God existing who created everything. I'm just having trouble with Islam being from him.”
I don’t think you came to these conclusions on your own.  I’ve encountered this exact same list on numerous occasions around the Internet, and it sounds more like an ideological recruiting/conversion effort.  None of these points are very logical based on fundamental insight into Al-Islam and the Qur’an.
aamna wrote: “The book just isn't so miraculous. It's nothing out of the ordinary work of man.”
You think so?  You don’t think it miraculous that an illiterate man would begin to speak a body of revelation, and that in a single draft, would cause the Arabic language to reach “its utmost capacity of expression, and the literature its highest point of complexity and sophistication. Indeed, it probably is no exaggeration to say that the Quran was one of the most conspicuous forces in the making of classical and post-classical Arabic literature.”  For someone who can’t even read and write to perform such a deed in a single draft seems pretty miraculous to me, and quite extraordinary.  Perhaps you have evidence where such a phenomenon is actually pretty routine and happens all the time?  If this is so, perhaps we should stop teaching our kids to read and write?
aamna wrote: “I'd expected more out of the one true God.”
Again I think it is odd whenever an omnipotent and omniscient being is criticized by very, very non-omnipotent, non-omniscient beings.  Do you really have a critique for how you think such a being should/would behave, or what technique He should use for conveying His message to His creation?  This being… by definition… knows all, is limited by nothing, can see into the far future and knows the distant past.  This being knows levels of mastery over items so complex and subtle, it would be impossible for you to even prepare to understand how He could possibly do it.  This is the being that created the concept and structure of mathematics from scratch.  I think this comment of yours far oversteps your bounds as a created creature, and lacks all insight. 
aamna wrote: “He didn't mention any great scienitifc claim…”
He said He created the universe with the force of His will alone.  That isn’t great enough for you, aamna?  Tell me what would qualify as great to you.  Rocket back-packs?
aamna wrote: “…no evidence;”
God, in His mercy, told you the Truth, and gave you a guide book to enable you to take full advantage of that Truth so that you will prosper in this world and in the next.  The evidence lies in taking Him at His word and doing as He says; the fruits of that obedience will be evident -- the resulting success a testimony to the greatness of the Lord of the worlds.
aamna wrote: “…nothing that would separate his work from a normal man's.”
Mere men complain that the Qur’anic verses possess a “lack of continuity, absence of any chronological or thematic order and presence of repetition,”even as they are awed when these same traits produce a quasi-preternatural devotion in the believer, enable the believer to memorize the texts in its entirety, and enable an entire culture’s language to achieve the highest levels of classical literature expression.  Yet you claim that this is actually no different than the work of any mere human being.  Interesting.
aamna wrote: “His ideas are just taken from what was common at that time.”
Is that why the Qur’an changed the world?  Note that there is only One God, and His message is one message that has endured throughout the ages, each component revealed through, and preached by, one of His messengers.  Each of the components of the message of God referenced ("confirmed & fulfilled") the components of the message that came before it, and I find it strange that you would think the Qur’an is unusual in this.  Again you are demonstrating a basic lack of insight into this faith that I assumed you’d been studying your whole life.  Are you really going to risk hellfire over these silly items that some atheist made up and circulated throughout the ‘Net while pretending they are truths about Islam?  Atheists never have insight into religion, that’s why they are atheists.  With their narrow-minded mentality they refuse to contemplate anything outside of what they can experience with their physical senses.   They are not the ones to take as mentors and teachers when it comes to deeper matters, especially those in which your immortal soul are hinged, aamna.
aamna wrote: “There is so much doubt around it…”
Doubt is normal.  Surrendering to doubt is foolish. 
aamna wrote: “…and why would a God punish someone for using their logic against it?"
Because God knows and you know not.  He told you that.  Why would you gamble that your little bit of logic is superior to the Supreme Creator’s Truth?  Doubt all you wish, but give the Lord of all the worlds the benefit of the doubt that He knows what he is talking about, please, for your own sake.
aamna wrote: “Why would a perfect book be so ambiguous that anyone can interpret anything from it - even though its supposed to be clear?”
The book is clear.  The problem here is that you are directing your critical eye in the wrong direction.  It’s the humans that read the text that are stupid.   Sometimes they are stupid because they were born slow, and sometimes they are willfully stupid and refuse to see truth because they prefer to hold onto worthless ideologies and/or mindsets that will not profit them.
aamna wrote: “There is nothing special about the Quran.”
lol We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on that point.  I 100% disagree with this and just don’t see it that way.  If you can’t see it then I can’t help you to see it. 
aamna wrote: “To me, it's incredibly boring to read and its main basis is fear of hellfire.”
Its main basis is dual:  paradise & hellfire. 
aamna wrote: “The subjects jump constantly and I have read better work.”
Better work in that genre? 
aamna wrote: “To be honest, no I haven't read the Arabic form and the Quran in its true entirety…”
Have you read it in its entirety in your native tongue?
aamna wrote: “…and I have no right to state my opinion as fact but I can say that I dislike the message.”
Believe in the One God, do good deeds, avoid bad deeds, and repent when you mess up is the message of the Qur’an, aamna.
aamna wrote: “I do NOT agree with wife beating…”
That’s not the message of the Qur’an.  Remember what the verse said?  Tell me.
aamna wrote: “…or men being equivalent to two women.”
It didn’t say that men are the equivalent to two women.  What did the verse say?
aamna wrote: “I disagree with the marriage of young girls.”
What do old Semite traditions have to do with the Qur’an?  Is that a command from Allah??? 
aamna wrote: “I disagree with slavery - no matter how nice you are to them, it should not be allowed at all.”
Allah said that doing good deeds is how you will enter paradise, and He lists “freeing a slave” as a good deed.  lol  What does that sound like to you regarding the Qur’an’s position on slavery as a whole?  Doesn’t the Qur’an encourage the believer to perform good deeds?  So since it considers freeing the slave as a good deed, what does that imply logically?
aamna wrote: “As a developed species, we've overcame such things and I feel it's delusional to keep practising those things.”
If Allah encourages you to do a particular good deed, but you as an individual refuse to do it out of greed, then why are you blaming the Qur’an for the behavior?  Is THAT logical?
aamna wrote: “It's an obstacle in our development.”
It’s an obstacle in a willful individual’s development.  Uthman would free a slave every Friday, remember?  That’s why he was one of those who were “rightly guided,” right?  He obeyed the commands of God in the Qur’an.  So what are the grounds for your complaints against the Qur’an now?
aamna wrote: “There was a time for the Quran and I hate to say it, but I think it's over.”
lol
See Also:
Are Muslims Allowed to Draw?

RESPONSES: Awakening the Atrophied Eye

After completing my Monsters 101 graphic novel series at the end of the 2013 summer, I found myself with a little extra time on my hands, and was inspired to work on a special project.  I decided to try to meditate every day for up to an hour, based on the specific instructions within the pyramid texts at Saqqara in Egypt, with the expressed purpose of attempting to open the Third Eye portal.  Fatefully journaling the experience on this blog was a part of the project.  It was very fun, but I had to back off of it when I started another big, multi-title graphic novel project, so I only made about eleven blog entries for it to date.  

Shown below are the responses from social media friends and family to some of the blog entries. You'll notice that I mined some of them for material to address in the next blog I wrote, along with my description of what took place during the session.

******
Awakening the Atrophied Eye – INTRODUCTION

[no responses to date]

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day One

Brett Barton - Zeeeesh. You breaking out the Korean finger board for this one....

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Two

Nurah Rasheed - I dunno why, but these scare me so much.

Muhammad Rasheed - [rubs hands together]

Muhammad Rasheed - Every time you react that way it ends up inspiring some of my best shit.

Nurah Rasheed - lol what the heck?

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Three

Jeremy Travis - If these come to an abrupt halt at some point, and your FB posts cease as well, should we just assume that something on the other side 'got' you?

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Four

Jackals Home - You should find a guide for these spiritual experiments. Tila Tequila Has 100% Lost Her Mind

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't need no stinking guide.

Muhammad Rasheed - From Wiki: "In 2011 Vivid Entertainment released a video of Nguyen engaging in sexual acts with pornographic actresses Kristina Rose and Charlie Laine."

HEY!!!

Jackals Home - There are others you could use: James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff

Jackals Home - This guy learned his chi-control from an old sensei. You love those! James Randi exposes James Hydrick

Jackals Home - Maybe this guy: Kiai Master vs MMA

Muhammad Rasheed - lol I already know about those "deep" people. That's why I know I don't need no stinking guide.

Jackals Home - If you want to have crazy hallucinations with imagined portent, without the use of psychotropic drugs, you can use the Ganzfield system (Hack Your Brain: How to hallucinate with ping-pong balls and a radio). Disclaimer: It's testable, verifiable, and repeatable. Which means it's not magic. So you might not be interested.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "If you want to have crazy hallucinations..."

Ew. I don't want that. I don't need any crazy dreams.

Jackals Home wrote: "...with imagined portent..."

Ew. I don't want that either. I use that mindset for comics.

Jackals Home wrote: "...without the use of psychotropic drugs, you can use the Ganzfield system..."

No thank you. I'm already using one. It's the best.

Jackals Home wrote: "Disclaimer: It's testable, verifiable, and repeatable"

No thank you. The one I'm using is like that. That's what the blog journal is for.

Jackals Home wrote: "Which means it's not magic."

lol The system I'm using is magic and it's testable, verifiable, and repeatable.

Jackals Home wrote: "So you might not be interested."

Maybe I'll give it a shot when I'm done with this one, depending on what that link reveals. It'll be more fun if you do it with me and we can argue over what the phenomena that we'll both see (everyone sees the same stuff using these techniques) means.

Jackals Home - I already had a lot of the stuff you talk about, like sleep paralysis, night terrors, etcetera. It was a symptom of sleep apnea. Using a CPAP has eliminated those effects. So CPAP's must be magic too. "Seeing the hag out of the corner of your eye while paralyzed in your bed? Try a magic CPAP!"

Jackals Home - And you're gonna have a hard time convincing me of the magical nature of your hallucinations, considering how easy the effects can be duplicated with non-magical ping-pong balls and white noise (IE sensory deprivation, which is basically what you're doing). This is neurobiology, not parapsychology. But I think you know that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "I already had a lot of the stuff you talk about, like sleep paralysis..."

I didn't have any sleep paralysis though.

Jackals Home wrote: "night terrors..."

I've never experienced night terrors, James.

Jackals Home wrote: "...etcetera."

I haven't experienced any etcetera. lol

Jackals Home wrote: "It was a symptom of sleep apnea. Using a CPAP has eliminated those effects. So CPAP's must be magic too. "Seeing the hag out of the corner of your eye while paralyzed in your bed? Try a magic CPAP!""

lol But I don't have problems sleeping. I sleep great.  In fact, it's a primary requirement for performing correct meditation this way.

Muhammad Rasheed - Are you fussing at me? lol

Muhammad Rasheed - There's nothing wrong with my breathing so it's not sleep apnea. The breathing technique I use is charging me with air from the slower inhale. I feel great.

Muhammad Rasheed - Really.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's possible that it might be dangerous for someone to try if they have symptoms of asthma though. Maybe?

Jackals Home - I've read the posts, silly. The lurking figures (edit: shapes, apparently)? The "hag" from mythology (John Henry Fuseli)? That's neuroscience. No, I'm not fussing, but you're basically doing sensory deprivation experiments. There's nothing wrong with that, but we've already figured that out, the effects you can achieve can literally be accomplished with ping-pong balls and white noise.

Jackals Home - Your "immortal self" is the movie your brain plays when you deprive it of stimulus. This isn't like, a poorly understood area of science. Through practice, you'll be a witness to all manner of fanciful imagery (like shooting stars, which you're already getting). You can also get to the same exact neurological place using the Ganzfield process. It creates exactly the same effect, in less than an hour, first time for most subjects, complete with the increased feelings of spiritual portent. But since you didn't hear about it by a guy with "Baba," "Yogi," or "Mahareshi" in his name, it's not the secret world of magic your looking for. It's just boring old science.

Jackals Home - Here's the up side, though. As long as you continue to treat this as a supernatural journey, that makes you every bit as qualified to write a book like Clesson H. Harvey (who, unsurprisingly maintains an invisible presence online, unless you want to buy his books) that other people who believe in magic can buy and use as "evidence" that these completely mundane sensory deprivation methods enable the human soul to tap into TRUE HIDDEN POWER!!!!!!!

For my own piece of mind, I'll assume this is part of a long con to be executed in this manner. It's certainly less work than drawing cartoons, and likely an easier sell.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "I've read the posts, silly. The lurking figures (edit: shapes, apparently)?"

There are no figures. There are just vague images that appear around that area. Instinctively I'm intrigued and want to study them to see what they are, and probably would if it wasn't for the pyramid texts' instruction not to do so. I figure everyone would.

Jackals Home wrote: "The "hag" from mythology...?"

I know no hags. In the beginning of the Day Four post I deliberately attempted to play up a scary aspect based on my sister's fears because she said that in the previous FB link. I also created a clown-like creature in my M101 story based 100% on that same sister's fears just to mess with her. I didn't mean to imply that I really saw that feral boy or anything actually scary. I'm not afraid of the dark. That was kind of the point of Day Four's early paragraphs. There's no hag.

Jackals Home wrote: "That's neuroscience. No, I'm not fussing, but you're basically doing sensory deprivation experiments."

I prefer to meditate in the dark because during earlier attempts I had a tendency to get distracted by things as small as cracks in the wall, so yeah, in that sense I'm depriving myself of light (except for the fovea spot, of course). Other than that, since the meditation technique can be performed normally in regular lighting conditions, I don't see how it can be considered a sensory deprivation at all.

Jackals Home wrote: "There's nothing wrong with that, but we've already figured that out..."

I don't think they are "figured out" since so much about the brain is still not understood. Many, many, many more experiments are still needed, much more data needs to be collected before we can figure it out fully.

Jackals Home wrote: "...the effects you can achieve can literally be accomplished with ping-pong balls and white noise."

I know. There's lots of ways we can get our DMT levels up and experience altered states of consciousness, like long bouts of rhythmic dance, and ingesting drugs. A certain percentage of the populace can trance out at will. I'm less interested in the effects on THIS side of it, than on the shamanic side of it. I'm interested in the side that isn't being explored by folk who want to catalog the process for posterity and general knowledge. The people with all the money and funding have this side covered.

Jackals Home - Much about the brain is not understood. This is not one of those areas. The technology to create these effects, complete with intense feelings of spiritual portent, can be bought at Target, for less than twenty dollars. If the effects you seek can be created with such paltry methods, you'll forgive me if I fail to sign off on it being a spiritual event.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Your "immortal self" is the movie your brain plays when you deprive it of stimulus."

As a fan of your blog, your disbelief and disdain for the unseen is well-known to me, as my full belief in it is known to you. My immortal self is the body I will inhabit in the afterlife. You have no way of knowing whether that is true or not based on the info available in scientific literature (other than in the works of Dr. Rick Strassman). I know you are just expressing how you genuinely feel from your position, but I think it's unreasonable to expect me to accept those kinds of statements as truth. It just comes across as disrespectfully dismissive.

Jackals Home wrote: "This isn't like, a poorly understood area of science."

Sure it is if they just automatically assume it's "fanciful" and fail to maintain the objective mindset of the scientist.

Jackals Home wrote: "Through practice, you'll be a witness to all manner of fanciful imagery (like shooting stars, which you're already getting)."

How do you know it's "fanciful?" based on what?

Jackals Home wrote: "You can also get to the same exact neurological place using the Ganzfield process."

I would expect to be able to get my DMT up using other methods that touch upon similar techniques. That's not the most interesting part of it. Unless the meditator has a "stop and smell the roses" mindset, and I'm not famous for having that at all. I just want the pay-off.

Jackals Home wrote: "It creates exactly the same effect, in less than an hour, first time for most subjects..."

Yes, that's the science part.

Jackals Home wrote: "...complete with the increased feelings of spiritual portent."

I can't say for sure whether I would have that or not. I expect the spirit stuff because I believe.

Jackals Home wrote: "But since you didn't hear about it by a guy with "Baba," "Yogi," or "Mahareshi" in his name, it's not the secret world of magic your looking for."

The guys in my blog's bibliography aren't those mystic "swammy" types. I'm familiar with those types of folk. I've been a fan of The Amazing Randi, too, James. This stuff isn't like that, though I can see why you'd be ready to lump it all in with the rest. My sense of discernment isn't complete garbage. Actually because of my respect for you and how you think, I would love if you'd crack open some of these books and let's just talk about it from that angle instead of from this side of the argument. It would be better if you approached this argument for a better informed stance, that way when you attempt to poke holes in it, it will have more weight. To me. But I would be genuinely interested in your opinion of it once you read them and had an opportunity to look it up in your own way.

Jackals Home wrote: "It's just boring old science."

I love science. I don't like certain scientists and their world-views and particular hypotheses/theories though, and that's not the same thing.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Much about the brain is not understood. This is not one of those areas."

Wait, which part? I'm talking about from the standpoint of knowing why certain effects are produced and what it could mean, etc. Why do we NEED DMT? Stuff like that. The reason is the interesting part to me, not the nuts and bolts of how necessarily. I'm not a techie. I don't care how this cell reacts to that stimulus, etc., I just care about the why and where's it going. What the function and how can I profit from it. Similar to that one post you had about the cell phone and video game tech. You don't care about the science behind how they are able to do what they do, even if you have a great deal of respect for science, you just want them to do what you need them to do. I feel the same. I'm fascinated by the abilities of the human brain but I care about how to tune this organic receiver onto Channel Third Eye.

Jackals Home wrote: "The technology to create these effects, complete with intense feelings of spiritual portent, can be bought at Target, for less than twenty dollars. If the effects you seek can be created with such paltry methods, you'll forgive me if I fail to sign off on it being a spiritual event."

They can also be duplicated by boiling certain types of plants and fungi and drinking the potion. But the particular effects produced are more important than the methods to get there. That's not a good reason to turn down signing off on it. The basic stylus and tablet are pretty simple and easy to produce as well, just grab a chunk of chalk and a flat slab of stone. But you can use those simple tools to record valuable bits of human knowledge so another human can learn what you know. Should I dismiss that feat because any ol' fool can scratch marks onto stone?

Jackals Home - I looked all over for "Clesson H. Harvey," to find out anything I could about his background, photos of him, credentials, where he's taught, anything. He's a ghost on the internet, except for the site where you buy his books. His lack of internet presence reeks of hucksterism, so I disagree regarding the bonafides of the authors from which you're taking spiritual direction.

Likewise, if spiritual portent is placed on any colors or shapes you see when no other light is provided, then as always, I will be unable to provide evidence that that's not what it is. Similarly, I cannot disprove the existence of the Russel's teapot, so I'm not going to willingly engage that familiar inversion of how proof works. I do know that pressing on my closed eyes provides a colorful burst of what science calls "phosphenes" and barring any verifiable, testable, repeatable, evidence that phosphenes are a message from my immortal self, I'm going to have to stick with the mundane. Phosphene

Jackals Home - And don't be disingenuous. You cannot reproduce digital artwork with a chunk of calcium and a rock. C'mon.

The part of neurobiology where shapes and lights appear when you deprive your brain of stimulus. That's what is well understood. That's what we were discussing.

Closed-eye Hallucination

Isolation Tank

Prisoner's Cinema

You'll note those entries all link to this one, describing the Tibetan "Dark Retreat."

Dark Retreat

This isn't a coincidence, much like the entry on "Solar Deitiies" links immediately to an entry on "The Sun." It's not because we're confused whether the sun is a boat piloted by Ra. It's because there were times in the past where people made shit up to explain phenomena they didn't understand. We understand what the sun is, now. We know what causes phosphenes, closed-eye hallucinations, and that feeling of spiritual import. These are known knowns.

Closed-eye hallucination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Here's the up side, though. As long as you continue to treat this as a supernatural journey, that makes you every bit as qualified to write a book like Clesson H. Harvey..."

I HAVE LOTS OF BOOKS! lol

Jackals Home wrote: "...(who, unsurprisingly maintains an invisible presence online, unless you want to buy his books)"

That guy is four hundred years old. You see how lame his website looks. Plus he's a former college science professor, so he publishes. He's also focused on translating the hieroglyphs from the pyramid texts so he's busy.

Jackals Home wrote: "...that other people who believe in magic can buy and use as "evidence" that these completely mundane sensory deprivation methods enable the human soul to tap into TRUE HIDDEN POWER!!!!!!!"

lol That's how it works. Earth IS mundane. But it's not the final destination anyway, so it's good.

Jackals Home wrote: "For my own piece of mind, I'll assume this is part of a long con to be executed in this manner. It's certainly less work than drawing cartoons, and likely an easier sell."

A con from me?

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "I looked all over for "Clesson H. Harvey," to find out anything I could about his background, photos of him, credentials, where he's taught, anything. He's a ghost on the internet, except for the site where you buy his books. His lack of internet presence reeks of hucksterism, so I disagree regarding the bonafides of the authors from which you're taking spiritual direction."

He's an OLD academic. I'm not saying it's impossible that he's not a conman, but I know those kind of folk. He's really smart in his particular expertise, but he doesn't have a web presence because he's a goober when it comes to that stuff. I think that's the more likely explanation in this case.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Likewise, if spiritual portent is placed on any colors or shapes you see when no other light is provided, then as always, I will be unable to provide evidence that that's not what it is. Similarly, I cannot disprove the existence of the Russel's teapot, so I'm not going to willingly engage that familiar inversion of how proof works. I do know that pressing on my closed eyes provides a colorful burst of what science calls "phosphenes" and barring any verifiable, testable, repeatable, evidence that phosphenes are a message from my immortal self, I'm going to have to stick with the mundane. Again."

Well, not just this Third Eye thing (I take back my invitation to join me on this thing based on your asthma issue), but other concepts in those works by other authors. Not to convert you or anything like that, but to have conversations/discussions with you regarding the content and the concepts. And to bounce ideas for stuff off of you.

Muhammad Rasheed - I promise some of that stuff you will find genuinely interesting.

Jackals Home - What college, exactly? Translating what texts? Where did he get his degree? What kind of respected academic doesn't have his bonafides available for perusal? People take pictures of their lunches now, I'm dubious that a guy translating ancient texts that hold TRUE ULTIMATE ENLIGHTENMENT!!!! wouldn't show off what they looked like a little online. Even if he's a luddite, surely someone involved in such a momentous undertaking would have an intern or two around, occasionally.

And I only wish you were planning a long con. Instead you're on the consumer end of one. Whatever, I mean, I spend tons of money on plastic D&D minis, it's not really for me to criticize what others do with their disposable income.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'll test you on that when I get to some of my notes.

Jackals Home - You're not hurting anyone, but I view this roughly the same as how I view Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's professed lifelong belief in the Cottingley Fairies.

Jackals Home - Naturally, I'm willing to discuss anything you like. I'm perfectly willing to be the skeptical friend.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "What college, exactly?"

The University of California in Berkeley.

Jackals Home wrote: "Translating what texts?"

The pyramid texts in Saqqara, James. About 10 miles from Giza.

Jackals Home wrote: "Where did he get his degree?"

My copy of The Short Path is in the states, so I'll get his bio to you next month for my visit home.

Jackals Home wrote: "What kind of respected academic doesn't have his bonafides available for perusal?

Dude he's OLD. He probably still keeps that stuff in a dusty leather folio in an over-filled drawer with a bunch of papers on it.

Jackals Home wrote: "People take pictures of their lunches now, I'm dubious that a guy translating ancient texts that hold TRUE ULTIMATE ENLIGHTENMENT!!!! wouldn't show off what they looked like a little online."

What do you mean? Examples of his translations are all over that site.

Jackals Home wrote: "Even if he's a luddite, surely someone involved in such a momentous undertaking would have an intern or two around, occasionally."

He's retired now. I remember that from the bio in The Short Path.

Jackals Home wrote: "And I only wish you were planning a long con. Instead you're on the consumer end of one. Whatever, I mean, I spend tons of money on plastic D&D minis, it's not really for me to criticize what others do with their disposable income."

It's not a con. I'm not saying it's impossible that it couldn't be, but it's not.

Jackals Home wrote: "You're not hurting anyone, but I view this roughly the same as how I view Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's professed lifelong belief in the Cottingley Fairies."

lol I know you do. That's why I'm going to test you with some of this stuff to see what you think. The straight "spirit" stuff I know you'll dismiss out of hand. I'm not talking about that. You'll see. It'll be fun.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "Naturally, I'm willing to discuss anything you like. I'm perfectly willing to be the skeptical friend."

Cool! That's all I ask. When I get back I'll loan you my copies of some of this stuff. You don't have to read everything, but there are certain things I want to show you so you can look them up in your own research train so we can talk about it later.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home "And don't be disingenuous. You cannot reproduce digital artwork with a chunk of calcium and a rock. C'mon."

I thought my analogy was very clever. My point was that you can write detailed valuable instructions to pass on to further human knowledge using cheap, simple tools that can be purchased at Target or Dollar Tree. Did you really side step my entire point to nitpick my example?

Muhammad Rasheed - Tsk.

Muhammad Rasheed - I meant "basic stylus and tablet" in the old school terminology definitions. lol

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Five

Jackals Home - I wouldn't hold out too much hope for the big payoff of "Opening the Door to Immortality." According to the University of Berkeley in-house chemistry magazine, Clesson H. Harvey died in October of 2012.

(In Memoriam '54 - Clesson H. Harvey)

He had no degrees in Archaeology, Linguistics, World Religion, World History, Parapsychology, or really anything other than dual Bachelors in Chemistry and Education. As I suspected, his qualifications regarding acquiring and then translating ancient Egyptian scrolls that give you superpowers might have been a bit lacking. I tried to look at his obituary in the Idyllwild Town Crier, but it was behind a paywall, so I have no idea if he has a plucky great-nephew, a Chosen One-type, perhaps, that will find the scrolls buried in his office and finally tap into that TRUE REALLY FOR REAL ULTIMATE POWERRR that his uncle was working on.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Clesson H. Harvey (B.S. Chem; CRED ’55, Educ), a retired physics and chemistry teacher, died at his home on October 18, 2012. Clesson’s education included courses in Tibetan and ancient Egyptian religion at UC Berkeley, and he was the author of many articles and books. He made his home in Idyllwild, CA."

Aw, that's sad! I wonder if he'd been sick since 2006 when his last Utterance translation went up? I'm sure his folk gathered his stuff and finished publishing his book for him. awww...

Muhammad Rasheed - Anybody can learn how to translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, James; they have courses for that everywhere. That's what the big rosettta stone/Champollion breakthrough represented. The pyramid texts themselves are also famous and widely available in publications for study.

Jackals Home - Got it. So the REAL ULTIMATE POWERR!!! Is widely available to anyone who can translate these texts, and an undergraduate class in Egyptian history is sufficient to qualify you to do that. Who else is working on this immortality secret, then? I'd like to familiarize myself with what kind of progress these other stalwart scholars are making.

Also, if you could let me know the Email addresses of a couple of the surviving pharoahs who used this ancient immortality secret, that would be a big help, too. I imagine the amount of useful information you could get from someone who became pure energy and lived for four thousand years would be significant.

Jackals Home - I'd also like to reiterate that your everyman approach to this quackery demonstrates that you are every bit as qualified to sell books about REALLY FOR REAL SPIRITUAL POWER!!! as Clesson H. Harvey.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Muhammad Rasheed - What is this "quackery" you speak of, Mr. Home?

Jackals Home - I think your sensory deprivation experiments have affected your short-term memory. Over the past couple days we've been discussing how a guy with a Bachelors in Chemistry wrote a book that convinced you that he was translating ancient Egyptian texts that would give you super powers.

His most recent book "Opening the Door to Immortality" was published posthumously, which is about as close to irony as you can get without a Homeric narrative.

Jackals Home - The "quackery" is the part where you've become convinced by a chemistry teacher that closed-eye hallucinations, easily replicatable through use of the cheapest, most tawdry man-made instrumentalities and methodology, is communication with extraplanar creatures.

Jackals Home - I especially like how you keep citing the completely unremarkable fact that "everyone sees the same visions when they do this" as if lack of diversity in results isn't what you would expect with a purely biological phenomena. Like, when people ingest methylene blue, their urine exclusively turns blue. It's not surprising that consistent stimulus results in consistent results. It's kinda the opposite of surprising.

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Six

[no responses to date]

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Seven

Ali Rashada - I'm finding your exploration and documentation interesting thus far. keep up the good work. This episode triggered a remembrance of great book i read called "The Mastery of Being." It was a logical explanation of how anything that was "real" was immortal, and then how anything immortal was part of the creator. Do you see this immortal self you are trying to contact as separate from the source of life? and if so, how does it maintain its immortality?

Muhammad Rasheed - Ali wrote: "It was a logical explanation of how anything that was "real" was immortal..."

That's neat. It reminds me of the work of René Guénon, who showed that high mathematics principles like the transcendental numbers point towards the proof of the other infinite realms that our terrestrial realm is but the shadow of. I'm going to check your book out. Wait... by William Walker Atkinson? Is he one of the folk from "The Secret?"

Ali wrote: "Do you see this immortal self you are trying to contact as separate from the source of life?"

No, I would suspect that our immortal half... which represents our conscious, having personal memories of life in heaven, and being the form we will inhabit in the afterlife... to be the part of us that God metaphorically "breathed" into us in order to give us life in the first place. It would definitely be part of the Source in that since.

Ali wrote: "...and if so, how does it maintain its immortality?"

That's an interesting concept, Ali. That some effort would be required for an immortal being to retain its infinite nature. In the Qur'an, God says of those who have attained paradise that they will have no need to fear, nor shall they grieve. To me that implies that, after a human lifetime on earth of continuous struggle, effort and a break-neck racing against the clock, now that time is over; you can now finally just "be." There is no longer any effort. To be truly immortal is to be free of any form of 'rat race' and to be at Ease as you so will.

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Eight

[no responses to date]

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Nine

[no responses to date]

Awakening the Atrophied Eye – Day Ten
Ali Rashada - Sometimes it seems as if you write about the wants and requirements of spiritual beings almost tongue in cheek. i wonder, do you really believe you can piss off spiritual being so that they refuse to help you forever, by something as trivial and human as being distracted.

Muhammad Rasheed - There's a few aspects making these posts come across that way. 1.) Is the pyramid texts' specific instructions of how to do this stuff and what the consequences are if you fail to do it correctly. 2.) My writing style will tend to project possible reasons and motives, in an anthropomorphic way, onto the possible motives or reasons as to the why of #1, which is very tongue-in-cheek since I really have no idea as to why the rules are exactly that way, or why they would be. 3.) The being directly responsible for having the Third Eye open is actually myself... my spiritual half. The part of me that will "take over the driving" so to speak after the death event. This side of me has personal memories of living in paradise, and doesn't operate out of 'faith' and 'belief' but knows for a fact that these things are real. Since the earthly actions of it's mortal half... me... are directly responsible for getting us there, I find it difficult to believe that it wouldn't get pissed if witnessing me do something that may jeopardize the state of our afterlife existence.

Abrahamic Scripture: For All Mankind or Only Local Tribes?

J Arealia Crear – [shared meme]



Gary Ballier Jr. - Abraham his women and his sons....if he had handled that differently, just saying !!!

Muhammad Rasheed - I like how that circle is completely missing both Mecca and Medina. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - "@AtheistWorld" sucks at geography and religion. smh

J Arealia Crear - You're correct. The circle would need to be slightly larger (approximately double its current size) to capture Mecca. The point remains, though, that there's a whole lot of people and faiths outside that circle. The rest of the world had organized religion, but many of those faiths were exterminated by the big three during global colonization.

J Arealia Crear - I'm a Christian, so this is not a knock on the big three. Sometimes, we need to reflect on WHY we believe what we believe.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's a good topic of discussion. Multi-layered.

Muhammad Rasheed - I can see a believer's viewpoint, and a secular viewpoint.

Muhammad Rasheed - J Arealia Crear wrote: "The rest of the world had organized religion, but many of those faiths were exterminated by the big three during global colonization."

Which ones were exterminated? It seems like all of the religions of world history are still hanging around. Unless you are referring to little local ethnic folk religions?

Renita Ward Williams - Clearly, the "@atheistworld" has not read the Bible. "Every single action" happened in the circle on his map? Actions in the Bible happened or will happen in modern day Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen, other parts of Africa, Turkey, Russia, China, Greece, Italy, the Ukraine, etc.

J Arealia Crear - @Muhammad... That's exactly what I'm referring to.

@Renita... Russia? China? The person who created this meme must not be the only one who missed a verse or two. Can you please point to specific scriptures? I don't recall the bible even contemplating the existence of land outside the middle east/upper Africa. (Also note that I have conceded that the circle needs to be roughly double its size)

Muhammad Rasheed - J Arealia Crear wrote: "@Muhammad... That's exactly what I'm referring to."

Those pagan folk religions didn't go anywhere. They just hid inside of the bigger religions. Even in the Muslim world they believe so many of those pre-Islamic superstitious items right along with the Abrahamic faith. It sheds light on why the Qur'an was continuously admonishing the Arabs for it.

Renita Ward Williams - Magog is modern day Russia. Ezekiel 38:2, Revelations 20:8. Russia and China are the two horns mentioned in Revelations 13. China is currently the only country with a population large enough to produce an army of the size mentioned in Revelations.

J Arealia Crear - So, "number of followers" is the statistic that separates "pagan" "superstition" from a true faith?

Number of followers correlates to number of warriors/guns. The beliefs, themselves, are not any more or less legitimate. However, the smaller religions lacked the power to protect their beliefs. The big three are all conquest religions (The Crusades, etc). That is why they are the big three. It is not because their beliefs are somehow less superstitious than the religions that didn't make it. Who am i to scoff at tribal African religions, native American (north and south) faiths, traditional Chinese faiths? That's like saying we are alone in the universe. The thought process is so self - centered that my brain can't process the logical lapses.

J Arealia Crear - The location of Magog and other places that no longer carry their ancient name is the subject of much debate. You can logically believe it to refer to Russia. Some religious scholars logically believe it to be somewhere else. But as to this discussion, I don't know of any biblical story that has happened in a location outside this circle. People may have COME from far lands, but their actions all happened in the circle (this meme refers to past actions, only. Not future/Revelations. Not lands mentioned in passing. The actual locations of the actions). Does that not strike anyone else as odd?

Renita Ward Williams - I guess I would be swayed if I didn't study the Bible myself. Much of Paul's work was done outside of that circle. Acts and Romans speak of Paul's work outside of the area highlighted in the map. Paul taught in Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor.

Muhammad Rasheed - J Arealia Crear wrote: “So, ‘number of followers’ is the statistic that separates ‘pagan’ ‘superstition’ from a true faith?”

No. During the Christ’s lifetime, a total of 15 people followed him, but what that messenger preached was very much a true faith. Noah’s followers probably totaled less than that. During the year that marked the beginning of the Hijrah, when the prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims needed to escape from the powerful pagan Meccan authorities determined to wipe them out, the believers were only a pitiful small band of a few dozen.

J Arealia Crear wrote: “Number of followers correlates to number of warriors/guns.”

There is no compulsion in religion, only in war and colonialism. When the battle-hungry leaders of these nations forcefully spread their cultures onto other people, the faiths that go along with them cannot be blamed for what greedy men decide to do.

J Arealia Crear wrote: “The beliefs, themselves, are not any more or less legitimate.”

What are you basing that on?

J Arealia Crear wrote: “However, the smaller religions lacked the power to protect their beliefs.”

An interesting statement. Then what is the point of praying to these deities, if none of them can protect that which is ascribed to them?

J Arealia Crear wrote: “The big three are all conquest religions (The Crusades, etc).”

Placing “The Crusades, etc.” inside of the parenthesis doesn't make the statement true. The Crusades were not religious in nature; they were a political land grab pretending to be religious.

J Arealia Crear wrote: “That is why they are the big three.”

They are the big three by virtue of numbers of adherents. The conquests associated to nations and dynasties were for the glory of kings, not for God.

J Arealia Crear wrote: “It is not because their beliefs are somehow less superstitious than the religions that didn't make it.”

lol That would only be because the conquered peoples never stopped following them, despite publicly proclaiming themselves to be believers in the Abrahamic faiths.

J Arealia Crear wrote: “Who am i to scoff at tribal African religions, native American (north and south) faiths, traditional Chinese faiths?”

When the One God who made you told you that He alone created reality, and that the other deities were but fictions invented by rebellious men, to doubt this jeopardizes your believer status. You only build up evidence against yourself for the Last Day.

J Arealia Crear wrote: “That's like saying we are alone in the universe.”

How?

J Arealia Crear wrote: “The thought process is so self - centered that my brain can't process the logical lapses.”

lol The One God is self-centered by virtue of Him being the only god.

Muhammad Rasheed - J Arealia Crear wrote: “But as to this discussion, I don't know of any biblical story that has happened in a location outside this circle.” People may have COME from far lands, but their actions all happened in the circle (this meme refers to past actions, only. Not future/Revelations. Not lands mentioned in passing. The actual locations of the actions). Does that not strike anyone else as odd?”

I guess whether this was ‘odd’ or not depends on the point of the meme’s comment compared to the point and truth of revealed scripture. What do we have here? In the Qur’an, God said He rose up a prophet from among every people; some He told us about, while most He did not. The family of Abraham -- the Hebrew and Arab nations -- were chosen to carry and guard the final message that closes the canon of revealed scripture for posterity and for mankind. The scripture is a gift that enables mankind to check their behavior so that they will be in the Lord’s good graces, and as such, the allegories, tales, metaphors, and lessons it describes – using examples of behaviors from the prophets and their companions and enemies – function as a history/profile of those tribes themselves. Since the actions of humans are universal, any such sampling will do. The sins and virtues mentioned apply to all men, throughout all time periods.

In order for it to be ‘odd’ that the final messages of the scriptural canon are describing people and events from a small geographical area, intended as they are to apply to all of mankind, the meme’s message would have to demonstrate that men outside of the Semitic tribes do not murder, steal, covet, commit adultery, bear false witness, worship items/concepts outside of the One God, etc. But if other men outside of these groups do indeed perform these wrongs, then no, it is not odd that the message relevant to the Semites would be relevant to everyone else, too.

Disneyland Dads: Messin' It Up for Everyone

Muhammad Rasheed - [shared link]


Michael Daniels - I've heard this type of person described recently as The Disney Dad.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Uncle Dad" is less likely to have a team of high-priced intellectual property lawyers knocking at your door if you use it in a book or article. 
Muhammad Rasheed - (hint hint)
Michael Daniels - That's kinda ironic as I heard the term from a family law attorney. I think it would be fair use. It's not meant derogatorily against Disney in any way.
Muhammad Rasheed - Hearing it used casually by an attorney in conversation is different from the attorney publishing the term in a book though. The term is definitely derogatory itself, and the Disney corp probably wouldn't want to be associated with a "crappy dad syndrome."
Michael Daniels - lol...Mo, I just actually read the article (did you), the author, who is also a family lawyer, uses the expanded term twice incuding once in the first line, with no apparent fear of legal repercussion.
Karla Holland - The worst uncle dads are the ones who think such behavior deserves them respect ("I send you lots of toys and take you places and this is how you treat me?"). These same idiots have nothing yo say when called out on their failure to teach life lessons and true discipline.
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "lol...Mo, I just actually read the article (did you), the author, who is also a family lawyer, uses the expanded term twice incuding once in the first line, with no apparent fear of legal repercussion. "
She also carefully put it in quotes, said that 'other people' called them that, and with '--land' added to it actually gives it a different connotation (to me) than what you first said above. She, very lawyer-like, made sure she covered her butt when she did write it, and made sure to distance herself from the term as she took advantage of her audience's familiarity with it. She had no apparent fear of legal repercussion because she knew what she was doing. 
She wasn't casually referring to it as 'Disney Dad' like nothing could ever happen to her the way you just implied.
Michael Daniels - Why do I let myself get caught up in this nonsense with you? I made a simple statement. You applied a straw man to that statement (it is highly doubtful you or I will ever write a book on the subject). I get drawn in pointing out that the article you posted challenges your view and then you cite both your mindreading of the author and your imaginary legal expertise as proofs of your outlandish point of view. Why oh why!
Jerry Lee Brice - That was a one sided judgemental article about something somebody is looking at from the outside -in.Does not take into consideration the F-cked up custody orders that force a dad into being a "weekend dad" with the mom being in the primary custody role to talk sh-t about the father 24/7 to the kids,..when we may want to have the same opportunity.You ever think about how it is to just be able to see your kids on the weekends?..that's a recipe for this type of thing..i could go in to it further, talk about my own experiences..but you may get my point of view,.I say, EVERY custody arrangement should start by splitting time, and all financial responsibilities for the child exactly 50/50, and give no one parent any advantage in time or money for the child over the other parent, and you will eliminate this dynamic from the family.MOST women abhor the very concept of a 50/50 split in time and money for the child, because they love to hold over the fathers heads the threat of taking the kids away from them, at their whims, or when THEY decide you are not living up to THEIR expectations of how you need to parent as a father...which gives them power over you.I say father's it's worth it to fight this women and do not allow the threat of theses child extortion custody and support rulings from family court, or any BS judgemental article like this until you when, or until the child turns 18, and you will not have to concern yourself with his mother's harrassment or judgement of how a father decides to parent his child..OR-split it all 50/50 down the line, and do some actual co-parenting, and see how they like it...and just focus on what is in the best interest of the child.We all have different personalities and we all make diverse parenting choices.
Cyco Myco Nelson - I'm a head case... Or maybe I'm overtly self involved..... Only seeing my children every other weekend was horrible... I didn't realize how much better things were being there all the time... Despite my issues with others... It's hard to express what kind of hell that is... Because it's so easy to see and say...... I'll never make up what I took from them... And I could never give them what they needed.... Trying to make things fun.. Nonchalant ... kids think about everything they see.... and then again.... Not everyone was meant to be a parent... ... some just don't know how to do it.. Fear that they are boring in those few moments they get.. And possibly lose the interest of the ones they love more than themselves
Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: “Why do I let myself get caught up in this nonsense with you?”
Because I’m an old Internet debate rival, and you just can’t resist the skirmish with me. Like the Thing vs the Hulk. 
Michael Daniels wrote: “I made a simple statement.”
I remember. You often do that. 
Michael Daniels wrote: “You applied a straw man to that statement (it is highly doubtful you or I will ever write a book on the subject).”
I didn't apply a strawman. You said that you heard the concept of the article described as something else, and I expressed the opinion that the term the author preferred was better, and I provided an example as to why that might be (notice the use of the word “if”). 
Michael Daniels wrote: “I get drawn in pointing out that the article you posted challenges your view…”
lol No, at that point you became obsessed with proving me wrong, and in that obsession, failed to notice all the things I pointed out in that post above and now you are butthurt, because you can’t see a way to recover. (that's a 'checkmate' btw)
Michael Daniels wrote: “…and then you cite both your mindreading of the author and your imaginary legal expertise as proofs of your outlandish point of view. Why oh why!”
I don’t even know what you are talking about here. Did she not put quotes around “Disneyland Dads” as well as start the article off by saying that it was what OTHER people referred to it as, and not her? Why would I need to read her mind to see that she was distancing herself from the term instead of just using basic levels of literacy? You’re just mad because you lose when you thought you would win purely by virtue of the term “lawyer” being present. 
Deacon: “Legal stuff, huh? This is MY area! Mo better back off! Surely I’ll win THIS skirmish! Let me knuckle down, flex and put him in his place.”
Beat it, Rockman, or Hulk will smash you again.
Brett Barton - Rockman? Like mega man?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "We all have different personalities and we all make diverse parenting choices."
Your passion for this issue, as well as your love & devotion for your son are clear, Jerry, and have been a noticeable part of your personality on your Timeline for these last couple of years. I can see why an article like this would irritate you, but this quote you ended your post with is the key here. The type of guy she's describing in the article is indeed real, and I've met him numerous times; I posted this because the Uncle Dad's of various levels of competency stood out to me... by name... as she was talking about them. He's the guy that these lop-sided laws were built around, that guys like you suffer for. 
I'm curious as to the percentage of Uncle Dads compared to your kind of devoted dads out there, and wonder if the 50/50 split you propose would do more damage in the long term? This very well may be if the Uncle Dad vastly outnumbers your kind of devoted dad. It's clear that the system needs to be tweaked by social scientists who have a better, and more well-rounded insight into the matter, instead of treating everybody the same, which is your main contention.
Jerry Lee Brice - You know I probably could step back from this and see your points here, and you know you are more than likely on point, and right.As disappointed as i was with the situation in family court, I totally understood why it went down that way, because I am a realest, and i can see what goes on out here in society.
Muhammad Rasheed - I understand, and I 100% see why you feel the way you do about the article, as well as the system itself.
Jerry Lee Brice - ...it was the whole "Disney" thing that hooked me!lLOl..
Muhammad Rasheed - The article's author isn't your enemy. It's the guy that has these kids and doesn't give a shit that these laws are created around that is your enemy. He's the one that makes all divorcee fathers look bad.
Jerry Lee Brice - You are right man, I was just over personalizing the article.I can see the bigger picture.
Muhammad Rasheed - Well, it IS a very personal issue for people in that situation, and you certainly sound as if you are shell-shocked from the war.
Jerry Lee Brice - LOl!..post traumatic stress man!LOL..I just always try to remember it's not about me, it's about whats best for the child, and try to manage my my reactions to whatever..but you know , I have developed some "feelings" about the issue...and my opinions on it are probably not very objective.
Muhammad Rasheed - And understandably so.
Jerry Lee Brice - ..but whatever the case may be, children are a blessing, the more the better!LOL..I look forward to having some more.

Pretending to Know

Scooter Alvarez - [shared photo]



A Nailah Arts - Lmaoooooo

Juju Bushman - bwaaaaahahahahaha

Makeda DeJene - Well actually the Bible says to go to doctors. Faith without works is dead. You can pray for healing but if you dont do a thing about it.....

Im agnostic but IJS

Muhammad Rasheed - Makeda FTW.

Atheists making up their version of what they think religion is about fails once again.

Makeda DeJene - Lol!!! Its weird because some of these memes are absolutely hilarious but some are a major reach and you can tell they dont know much about the Bible and thats when you get memes with holes in them

Muhammad Rasheed - I rarely encounter atheists game for a religious discussion who happen to know the principles of the pet religion they personally reject. Almost always their version of the religion is a made up one that is reinforced and believed within atheist hi-five circles, and is Bizarro weird compared to the actual faith.

Muhammad Rasheed - The one in the meme above is a classic one. Who says that "you should just pray" and never work or do anything else other than the atheists? Is that actually in scripture? Of course not, but they believe it is based on a narrow-minded blind faith of what they think religion is about. It's impossible to take them seriously when they only pretend to be champions of learning like that.

Typical Atheist Thinking

1.) Religion: “faith without works is dead” & “tie up your camel and THEN put your faith in God that it won’t wander off”
2.) Atheists: “Why don’t you pray to get to work instead of driving a car?  Don’t you believe in God instead of science?”
3.) Atheists hi-five each other, “Ooo!  Burrrn!”
4.) Religious scholars:  “dafuq?”

Lynne Vance - Funny, when I read the meme above, I think 'why would religious people have difficulty with anyone taking time off of work to reflect on concepts of community, family, reflection, charity, etc.?'
Muhammad Rasheed - ^You just gave the clue to the answer for the meme's holiday question: They happily accept the holiday named after the Deity they reject because it represents a paid day off of work. Why would they turn that down?

Lynne Vance - Your comment seems very skeptical, Muhammad and not very tolerant.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ironic, considering I don't consider the above meme, nor the hi-fiving laughter directly underneath it, to be very 'tolerant' either.

Is this a case of enjoying dishing it out, but don't like when it comes back, or are you going to plead "That was them and not me"?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Am I supposed to believe that the average atheist enthusiastically accepts the holiday named after the Deity they reject because they can't wait to get home and "reflect on concepts of community, family, reflection, charity, etc.?"

Muhammad Rasheed - hahaha

Lynne Vance - No, I'm sure you will still be the typical judgmental religious person who feels you have the answer to all of life's questions.
Lynne Vance - For the record, I'm not an atheist.
Muhammad Rasheed - As opposed to what? The typical judgmental atheist who feels they have the answer to all of life's questions?
Lynne Vance - Not so much opposed, as exactly the same.
Muhammad Rasheed - Sacred revealed scripture is on earth precisely to give those who believe the answer to life's questions. That's what it's for. That's what those who believe stand on, and it is the Authority that backs them.
What do the atheists have that backs their "typical judgmental" qualities that would qualify their opinions as being "exactly the same" as you claim?
Muhammad Rasheed - Tell me.

Scooter Alvarez -



Lynne Vance - Atheists hold no such burden. They are unencumbered by the necessity of proving anything. You have every right to believe in whatever sacred revealed scripture you want to. And atheists have every right to not believe any of it.

Lynne Vance - The original post was just a joke. That's all.

Muhammad Rasheed - In this case, I'm not asking for them to prove anything. I'm asking... if the theist and atheist "typical judgmental" attitudes are exactly the same... but the former's attitude is backed up to justify it... what is the latter's attitude backed by?

In your opinion, nothing backs their arrogance. So not only do they create "jokes" based on an extremely poor understanding of the religions they reject, but absolutely nothing justifies their empty arrogance.

Muhammad Rasheed - Interesting.

Scooter Alvarez -


Muhammad Rasheed - Lynne Vance wrote: "The original post was just a joke. That's all. It's not that serious."

It's actually very serious. Misinformed, ignorant opinion that pretends to be truth, in the deceptive guise of a "joke," actually does a lot of damage. Religion is a deep topic that MOST people lack the patience to study, so it is easier to believe that these types of misinformed meme soundbites actually reflect the truth about the subject in the part of the population who don't believe, or sit on the fence ("I'm spiritual, not religious").

Ignorant misinformation is widely available on a variety of topics, and on this one in particular. The average person thinks these items (that can actually represent a separate religious system all to itself) actually represent what Organized Religion is about, and make major life decisions around this information. They do it all the time. The typical empty arrogance of the atheist/agnostic community is based on false knowledge, and is very dangerous.

Dangerous if you believe in the concept of 'spirit' and the immortality of the soul anyway.

Muhammad Rasheed - But do you. As you say, everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish.  *shrug*

Common Misconceptions in Understanding Science II: An Unscientific Mindset Among Scientists

In Part One of this essay, we explored the basics of the Scientific Method and demonstrated how various scientific fields are constantly changing their notion of settled science as theories and hypotheses are refined and technology for testing those hypotheses improves. In Part Two, we now move on to examine the ways in which errors, miscalculations and deliberate deceptions contribute to upsetting settled science. 
* * * 
Scientists are human, too 
Yes, scientists are human, with all of the faults and foibles that implies. The example of the "Bone Wars" between paleontologists Cope and Marsh should tell us that. While popular culture prefers to paint Galileo as persecuted by the Church for his science -- indeed, consequently founding a counter-religious illuminati of scientists -- careful study of history reveals that Galileo was not "persecuted" for his beliefs, but rather he was sanctioned by Rome for his personal actions in defiance of a church order of which he was a member. We certainly have plenty of parallels today in which it is easy to point to scientists whose behavior casts a shadow on their own work. Of course, there are a few factors which tend to assist the process of self-destruction. 
The problem of "Publish-or-Perish" 
The essential currency of an academic scientist consists of two items: how many papers they publish, and how well-funded their research. While many scientists would love to have a job where all they needed to do was conduct experiments with no obligation to fight for promotion and funding, the simple truth is that any job must be evaluated by some form of a performance metric. Within most scientific jobs, that metric consists of having other scientists evaluate your work and pronounce that it is good. Typically, this consists of writing up results (and conclusions), submitting them to a scientific journal, obtaining a favorable review by peers, and then having that paper published in a journal where others can read it. Most of the evaluation of "worth" comes from the peer-review process (and more on that later), since, once published, any confirmation or refutation of the experimental results must take the form of letters to the editor, or new papers which agree or disagree with the published results. Letters to the editor are in fact very rare in science -- not that they are there, but that the number of letters compared to the number of published papers is really very small (not all journals accept letters, and even then, there may be 1-2 per issue, while the number of new papers is often 20-50 per issue).
Studies which produce results and conclusions counter to those always published must overcome the prior results in both numbers (how many published papers cite the result or the refutation) and the "Impact Factor" of the journal in which the study appears. Much as certain newspapers have reputations based on circulation and the type and number of articles they print, scientific journals have a similar ranking system based on a weighted ratio of the number of subscribers divided by the number of citations of the articles they publish per year. Thus, it is not just how many articles are published, but how many are read and subsequently cited by other authors (in other papers and journals). This ratio gives a sense of the relative impact that a journal has compared to others in its field. Thus an article in Science or Naturehas 2-5 times the impact factor of an article in Journal of Neuroscience, and 10-20 times the impact factor of an article in an open-access, open-review journal such as Frontiers in Neural Science. Any countervailing research published in a lesser impact journal is much like a battle of King of the Hill, and requires either repeated publication or getting the countervailing results into a similar high-impact journal.
Scientists are thus rated on the number of papers they publish, the impact factor of the journals in which they publish, and indirectly (via impact factor) how often their research is cited. At research foundations, corporate laboratories and government agencies, publication is the main tool used to assess the productivity of a scientist. In academia, there is one other factor: funding. Within colleges, universities and medical schools, some or all of a professor's salary may be "hard money" (paid by the institution) and some "soft money" (paid from research grants). In fact, almost all salaries in research below the Professor level are paid to a large degree from the research funds and the greater the scope of research project, the more funding sources required to support it. Research grants go through a peer review process similar to research publications; therefore the number of funded grants is also used as an evaluation tool for salaries and promotion of academic scientists.
Thus we come to the publish or perish dictum. The requirement for published papers and grants varies from place-to-place and also depends on the scientist's status: full professors with tenure need not worry as much as assistant professors without tenure. I have seen one recommendation that an academic scientist should publish one paper per year per person in the lab. Thus, a lab consisting of the investigator, one post-doc, two students and a full-time technician would want to publish 5 papers (or 4 papers plus one new, funded research grant) per year; with more credit given for high-impact articles. Personally, I feel that a lab which tries to publish so much runs a grave risk of errors, although it is true that larger labs have more opportunity to publish than small labs, so perhaps some variation on the rule is appropriate. My own preference has long been for one-two moderately placed (in terms of impact factor) papers per year, plus presentations at two scientific meetings a year. Still, given that it takes several weeks of writing just to produce one paper, plus time for the reviews and revision, publish or perish soon involves more time writing than researching, and all too often, rushing results into print before they are fully analyzed.
Accidents occur, and scientists are not immune from them. Hopefully, errors are caught in the review process; it has certainly happened to me, and I've caught many errors as a reviewer. Too much pressure to publish too often (or simply rushing the process), can lead errors that must later be corrected, either through published retraction, or simply by other lab(s) finding and reporting to differing results. No scientist truly wants to get a result published, and then find out later that the results were not valid due to a decimal point error in statistics... except when the errors are deliberate... 
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics! 
Since scientists are human, there is always the chance that one of them (us!) will deliberately manipulate data and or results -- particularly through the use of statistics. Those readers with a background in statistics will know that the primary use of statistical tests is to determine whether two sets of observation are different when it is difficult to determine by other means. Certainly, some scientific results can be clearly determined without statistics. For example: "Roses are red, violets are blue..." embodies an observation with a clear difference between the two cases. Ah, but it is not always so simple. Violets are, in fact a shade of purple, although statistically speaking, if one were to measure the color hues of violets, it might be shown to overlap with blue. As scientists, we would phrase the statistical question as follows: Does the color variation of the population of violets include the color blue? We further qualify the question to: Is it likely that if 95% of all violets in existence (also known as the "population" of violets), they would include the color blue? This, then, it what is known as a "P < 0.05", or a probability limit of 5%. In other words, does the presence of the color blue fall within 95% of the population of violets, or with the "outliers" comprising the other 5%? Statistical comparison provides a means of answering that question of whether two conditions can produce the same result given the normal, random variability of natural systems.
Now of course, when we get to roses, the situation is very different. While violets, by definition, have a fairly limited color palette, roses have a very broad palette -- from white to black, and nearly all colors in between. Thus in answer to the question: "Are roses red?" We can say yes. Likewise with: "Are violets blue?" "Yes." Now we can also look at the additional question: "Are violets red" and, with a statistical likelihood of at least 5%, answer "No, violets are not red (P < 0.05)." In other words, we accept the hypothesis: Violets are not red. But, "Are roses blue?" Here we have a problem, because the 95% population of rose colors does include the color blue, and we reject the hypothesis: Roses are not blue.

Thus we come to the crux of the problem –- even without deliberate malfeasance, it is all too easy to misrepresent the results of scientific experiments when the statistical tests give ambiguous results. From a scientific standpoint, Roses are red (among other colors) and violets are blue (to within a couple of shades); in addition, violets are not red (P < 0.05), but roses are not "not-blue." Note that these "statistical" results are dependent on how thoroughly the scientist samples the populations for their test. If we sampled only American Beauty roses, then indeed, roses would be red and not blue, and our statistical confirmation would be valid, but only for the population of flowers we sampled.

A Lack of (Statistical) Power 
A paper on this very issue of statistical misuse entitled: "Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience," by Katherine S. Button et al. appeared in the April 10, 2013 issue of Nature Reviews, Neuroscience, a quite respectable journal featuring reviews in the field of neuroscience. This report reviewed the statistical tests reported in Neuroscience research papers from 2011, and concludes that in the data they sampled, the statistical tests from those studies were very likely to either accept a hypothesis as true –- when it was not -– or miss confirming a true hypothesis.
The Nature Reviews article started with a literature search for meta-analyses in Neuroscience published in 2011, and found 246 articles that used "meta-analyses" -- essentially combining the data from many prior papers and re-analyzing those larger data sets for observations that cannot be seen in small data sets. A meta-analysis thus looks at data gathered and reported across many primary publications -- original reports from a single lab. The authors then sorted through those 243 articles for ones that provided enough information on the original data to allow calculation of statistical power in about 40 of those papers. Power functions uses the mean, or average, for a population, a measure of variability, and also determined how large of a difference can be reliably detected given a limited sample size. In essence, it is a way of predicting whether a statistical test is, itself, valid. The Statistical Power Function is the foundation of experimental design, and is the basis for justifying how many subjects to test, and what is considered a statistically significant result.
Button et al. concluded that many of the meta-analyses papers did not have high functions of statistical power, and risked incorrect interpretations of the statistical comparisons. However –- and this is very important –- that conclusion did not apply this conclusion to the field of Neuroscience as a whole. In short, headlines from April 2013 implying that the study condemns an entire field of science, are false. In perspective, this article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience sounds a cautionary note regarding the need for better statistical planning in meta-analysis. What the article does not do is state that all or even many Neuroscience articles have the same flaw. In particular, given that this caution applies to making unwarranted conclusions (and affects our notion of settled science), it again points out that fact that scientific discovery is an ongoing process, and the very announcement of settled conclusions sets the research up for scrutiny and critique. It behooves us all to avoid the danger of schadenfreude by using the result outside the scope of the study thereby committing the exact same error pointed out in the paper. Meanwhile, there are other factors at work which point out the good and bad with respect to scientific research, but frankly, misinterpretation of statistics pales in comparison to deliberate deception. 
The vaccine controversy 
One of the more famous incidents of scientific malfeasance involved a study from 1998 which showed a link between the measles vaccine and autism. The data showing a causal link was taken from autistic children who had received the "MMR" vaccine to prevent measles. However, when the study could not be duplicated, investigation revealed that data was taken from just 12 out of over 200 children available for the study. This procedure is often called "cherry-picking" and is used to ensure small variability within a set of data so that any statistical test come out exactly in a manner predetermined by the experimenter. On this basis alone, the study was invalidated and a retraction printed in The Lancet, a high-impact factor journal for medical research.
This could have been ruled a mistake, given that experimenters may "cherry-pick" data from human patients given the ethical concerns of withholding a beneficial treatment, thus impairing the ability to establish strict controls on the study. Under the circumstances, it may have been necessary to severely limit the study population if there were various other factors which could have contributed to the effects and confused the findings. [Incidentally, this accusation is often raised against other correlative health studies: smoking, diet, cholesterol, gluten, etc.] Unfortunately, this case was not about simple misuse of statistics, for there was a deeper thread of malfeasance. The lead author of the study, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, had filed a patent for an alternate to the MMR vaccine. Furthermore, a researcher working under Wakefield's supervision reported that there was no measles virus present (hence no effect of the MMR vaccine) in the children used for the initial study; while a former graduate student testified in court proceedings that Wakefield ignored data which did not fit his hypothesis (that MMR vaccine was linked to autism).
In the aftermath, Wakefieldresigned his hospital job in the United Kingdom, but was later censured by the UK Medical Research Council and banned from was fired from his medical and research positions, barred from practicing medicine in the U.K.He has since moved to the U.S., and despite admitting to the improper study, is still active in promoting the link between MMR vaccine and autism. In a strange turnabout to the notion of settled science, Wakefield's supporters accuse the medical authorities of U.S.and U.K.of the dogmatic approach and failing to acknowledge a link between vaccines and various diseases and disorders.
If data can be "cherry-picked," statistics can be misused, and hypotheses incorrectly rejected or confirmed, what are the protections against scientific malfeasance? What guarantee is there that a scientific report is valid, even if it goes against the conventional wisdom of the field? At the same time, how do we tell if a study is making false claims? The answer is, or should be, peer-review of scientific papers and proposals. A panel of other scientists reads any submitted paper or grant proposal, reviews the science for validity -- and recommends acceptance or rejection. At least, that's the way it is supposed to work, but the process of peer-review has its faults. 
The problems of peer-review 
[Disclaimer: I am a "peer-reviewer." I have over 100 scientific primary publications to my credit, and have been asked to review scientific articles since 1989 and NIH/NSF grant applications since 1998. Thus my opinion is shaped by 25 years in science participating in, and at the mercy of, peer review; and my typical workload consists of request to review about 12-18 papers and 5-10 grants per year. While this is what some my field might consider extensive experience with peer-review, it is also fairly limited in that it is only within my field, and only with respect to research papers and grants. By the way, my field required me to be the victim (excuse me – the recipient) of peer-review for many years (7 in my case) before becoming a reviewer.] 
What drives doubts about the effectiveness of peer-review? Here are some examples:
•  Evidence that the second generation anti-psychotics and antidepressants such as Abilify are not as effective as they were shown to be in initial research and clinical trials [The Truth Wears Off Is there something wrong with the scientific method? by Jonah Lehrer]
•  Similar to the above discussion of statistical power, a 2005 article in Public Library of Science journal claiming that 50% of published research findings are false due to statistical inadequacies [Why Most Published Research Findings Are False by John P. A. Loannidis]
•  An article stating that pre-publication peer review does not provide any guarantee of lasting importance of scientific results [Classical Peer Review: An Empty Gun by Richard Smith]
•  A field of opinion that pre-publication peer review serves only to limit publications to a level that meets the print capacity of the available scientific journals. The advent of on-line internet publication eases the space restrictions, so why not publish everything and let the broader scientific community sort it out? [Bulk Publishing Keeps PLoS Afloat by Phil Davis] and [Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase by Joseph J. Esposito]
•  The highly public "ClimateGate" scandal has reportedly shown abuse of pre-publication peer-review to publish some articles and block others [Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues by Anthony Watts]
While I do acknowledge that there are some merits to the points addressed above, I don't believe that peer review is broken per se, but I do agree that the scientific community as a whole needs to police it better. Violation of public trust by manipulating the system of peer review is an egregious act. Sadly it is not unusual for a "good-old-boy" network to operate in science. First there is the very nature of finding the peers to review the paper. When a paper is submitted to a journal, the authors provide a list of names of scientists (peers) who have expertise in the field and should be able to judge the work on its scientific merits. There is often a second list of person known or suspected to be biased by virtue of a conflict of interest. Editors (and funding agencies) are alert to even the appearance of bias either for or against the authors, but it is often the case that an editor is unfamiliar with the details of the research and must rely on those recommendations to choose the peer reviewer. Over the past year I have become an editor of a journal in my field. It is hard to find enough reviewers willing to take time out of their research to review papers. Good reviewers get heavy workloads and many requests simply because they are so good (and available). Fortunately, most scientists are aware of appearance of bias, and will be more critical of their friends than a complete stranger. I, for one, try to ensure that someone I know professionally does not get a "pass" on sloppy science, since it also reflects poorly on me. In addition, recommending only "friends" as reviewers won't work –- as an editor, I soon discovered that only one in ten of the recommended reviewers will accept an assignment, but that those turning it down will recommend someone else; thus, editors work down the list until they find two-to-five reviewers (depending on the journal.)
One of the problems in peer review is the "not invented here" syndrome. An article may be very well-written, but rejected by multiple journals on the basis of "not appropriate (or too complicated) for the readership of this journal." When reviewed by scientists with traditional training within a field, such a paper may be subject to highly critical reviews or unreasonable demands for additional experimentation or controls. When that same paper is read by cross-disciplinary scientists, it may receive a much more favorable (or even enthusiastic) reception. When added to the desire to get a novel finding into print first and lay claim to a result (thus upsetting settled science) it can be very frustrating to know that an outside audience would publish in a heartbeat, while still no getting recognition from one's peers!
This, however, is where the second and fourth bullet points above interact. A new model of publishing embodied by the journal PLoS One (Public Library of Science) is an online publication that does not make value judgments on the appropriateness of an article, but will subject it an open review by 2-5 peers whose name appears with the publication. Typical review is by 2-3 outside reviewers, plus the editor, and is "blind" in that the author never knows who reviewed the paper. The philosophy of PLoS One is to let the scientific community sort it all out post-publication; with unlimited space, there can be publication of every article that passes basic peer-review; however, the scientific community will decide for itself what is worth keeping. This is not an entirely bad approach, but it still has problems: (a) the supply of reviewers is limited (see above), and (b) once released, there is no good way to retract a publication later determined to be invalid. Thus, publishing more while maintaining the peer-review process is not necessarily a winning game. What if there were a way to reduce the burden of peer review by simply publishing and letting "society" decide what results are worthwhile? If all scientific publishing were done on the internet, and anyone wanting to find a particular result just had to search for it, there would be the issue of deciding which search results to choose: The most recent or the one with the most links or comments. Simple comment count would also not be enough, since those comments could entail a running argument of the pros and cons of the scientific paper. If we institute a judgment of worth or a vote on the acceptability of a scientific paper, we risk turning Science into a popularity contest. Consider also the Wikipedia model: Should just anybody -- with or without formal scientific training –- be able to edit our "WikiScience?"
By far, my strongest counter to claims that peer review is broken and should be replaced (or scrapped) is that if there are no gatekeepers, then there is no way to weed out the junk science. The continuing measles/autism scandal is the perfect example of science by public acclaim; if it had been subject to greater scrutiny, it may never have been published. In addition, once it was published, it has been damnably difficulty to remove its credibility from those who choose to believe. Do I think peer-review is broken? I certainly think it has been warped; which is good for challenging any notion of settled science, but is simultaneously dangerous in allowing science to be subject to public whim. 
It's a process, not a conclusion 
I do not think that any portion of the scientific process should be scrapped: from hypothesis generation, to statistical analysis, to peer review. I do think it needs better watchdogs -- and those watchdogs are the scientists whose job it is to always keep in mind that their job is to continually renew the process of science, and never "settle" (pun intended) for the easy answer or the sloppy science. If a scientist witnesses abuse of the system, they should be able to speak out and not get shut out because of political whim. When they find truly novel results, or results that contradict the settled science, they need to be encouraged to publish the novelty, correct their mistakes, and avoid the trap of thinking that a result is a conclusion.
At the same time, the public needs to be better educated so that they do not get told what to do be manipulative media politicians and yes, scientists. I would be all for fully open access to science if the public were educated enough to understand the basics to be able to tell what is and is not good science. Unfortunately the reality is that there exists a high level in science where only a very few people worldwide understand or even care. Only time can judge the worth of such research, the rest requires an educated populace. As long as there is *any* stratification within the populace based on education, there will be those who must translate science to the masses, and become a gatekeeper.

Unfortunately, the gatekeeper position can all too easily be corrupted as we have seen. Any scientific conclusion which agrees with the gatekeepers is too easily labeled as a "consensus," while dissenting opinions are labeled as "fringe," "deniers," or even "fraud." The section on scientific blunders in the beginning of this essay certainly highlights the error inherent when new evidence and scientific results comes along and relegate the former consensus position to the same historic scrap heap and geocentrism. I will sometimes state that any two scientists will produce three different scientific opinions. In even the narrowest aspects of my research field –- with possibly a total of only 200 labs in the world which study the same aspect of Neuroscience –- it is difficult to get even half of them to agree on any one theory. A true consensus in the sense of agreement of >90% of scientists in that field would require so many coincidences, that are mathematically extremely rare. 
Internet memes and the love of science. 
As stated above, there is a real need for better public education in science. In fact, an old friend of mine just went to work for the U.S. Department of Education in a program working to improve the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) curriculum in schools throughout the country. It is a daunting job, but frankly, it is not helped by the tendency for people to latch onto internet memes such as the Facebook website with the non-PG13 name: "I F---ing Love Science." Unfortunately, this site and others like it, do more damage to the notion of real science (not to mention perpetuating the false notions of settled science and consensus). The IFLS site and the pictures they post are often the flashy, colorful end result, and are more indicative of the skill of the graphic artist than the actual science. They generally ignore the need for a deeper understanding of the Scientific Method and the sheer mind-numbing tedium of experimental testing in order to truly "love" science. While a well-coifed scientific pundit in a tweed jacket (or an engineer in rumpled lab coat) is lauded by the media, working scientists are often ignored or distrusted. Very few scientists have publicists and make-up artists; science is not more "true" because the experiments bubble menacingly, flash lights on complex equipment, or turn pretty colors. Someone stated in an online discussion the IFLS memes don't truly love science, they are merely "admiring its butt as it walks by."
I can only hope that this exploration of why science is always changing, and always refining itself, will lead to a stronger, better educated public, resistant to error and fraud. Our greatest defense against being fooled or misled –- by changing theories in science, by misinterpretation or by pseudoscience -- lies with education. A true love of science and a better understanding of the dangers of thinking that science is settled or represents a consensus starts with knowledge.
Knowledge is power. Be powerful.
SOURCE:  "Why Science is Never Settled" , Part Two by Tedd RobertsTedd Roberts is the pseudonym of neuroscience researcher Robert E. Hampson, Ph.D., whose cutting edge research includes work on a "Neural Prosthetic" to restore memory function following brain injury. His interest in public education and brain awareness has led him to the goal of writing accurate, yet enjoyable brain science via blogging, short fiction, and nonfiction/science articles for the SF/F community.

See Also:
Common Misconceptions in Understanding 'Science'

Fundamentalism Isn't Really About the Bible; It's About Politics

Bill Nye and Ken Ham will be debating creationism on Feb. 4, and it’s a bad idea for both scientists and Christians. Ham’s young-earth creationism represents the distinct tendency of American Christian fundamentalists to reject science and use their religion to defend economic ideas, environmental degradation and anti-science extremism. But these views aren’t actually inherent in Christianity — they’ve been imposed on the biblical text by politically motivated and theologically inept readers. The solution is not anti-theism but better theological and scientific awareness.

The vast majority of right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are evangelicals, followers of an offshoot of Protestantism. Protestantism is based on the premise that truth about God and his relationship with the world can be discovered by individuals, regardless of their level of education or social status. Because of its roots in a schism motivated by a distrust of religious experts (priests, bishops, the pope), Protestantism today is still highly individualistic. In the United States, Protestantism has been mixed with the similarly individualistic American frontier mythos, fomenting broad anti-intellectualism.

Richard Hofstadter’s classic, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” perfectly summarizes the American distaste for intellectualism and how egalitarian sentiments became intertwined with religion. He and Walter Lippmann point to the first wave of opposition to Darwinian evolution theory, led by William Jennings Bryan, as the quintessential example of the convergence of anti-intellectualism, the egalitarian spirit and religion. Bryan worried about the conflation of Darwinian evolution theory and capitalist economics that allowed elites to declare themselves superior to lower classes. He felt that the teaching of evolution challenged popular democracy: “What right have the evolutionists — a relatively small percentage of the population — to teach at public expense a so-called scientific interpretation of the Bible when orthodox Christians are not permitted to teach an orthodox interpretation of the Bible?” He notes further, “The one beauty of the word of God, is that it does not take an expert to understand it.”

This American distrust of experts isn’t confined to religion. It explains the popularity of books like “Wrong” by David Freedman (a book that purports  to show “why experts are wrong”) that take those snobbish “experts” down a peg.  The delightfully cynical H.L. Mencken writes,

The agents of such quackeries gain their converts by the simple process of reducing the inordinately complex to the absurdly simple.  Unless a man is already equipped with a considerable knowledge of chemistry, bacteriology and physiology, no one can ever hope to make him understand what is meant by the term anaphylaxis, but any man, if only he be idiot enough, can grasp the whole theory of chiropractic in twenty minutes.

Thus, an American need not understand economics to challenge Keynes, nor possess a PhD to question climate change, nor to have read Darwin to declare his entire book a fraud. One need not read journals, for Gladwell suffices, and Jenny McCarthy’s personal anecdotes trump the Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences.

The irony of modern American Christian right-wing fundamentalism is that, for all its talk of tradition, it is a radically new way to read the Bible. The strict constructionist, or literal fundamentalist, biblical method of interpretation was invented in the 19th century. America at this time experienced rapid social change that played a key role in creating the fundamentalism that now lies at the core of the religious right. The Industrial Revolution gave rise to the idea that technological progress is the way forward. American Protestants worried that all this science would encroach on their religious beliefs, so they turned to the Bible as the source of all knowledge — scientific and spiritual. During a time when Darwin’s followers were trying to explain everything in terms of evolutionary theory, American Protestants refused to look for truth outside their interpretation of Scripture.

In “Fundamentalism and American Culture,” George Marsden describes fundamentalism as “essentially the extreme and agonized defense of a dying way of life.” The American Protestant response to the Industrial Revolution was engendered by the fear that a small cabal of experts would dictate to Americans how to live their lives and that science would somehow replace their religion. In truth, the Christian tradition provides little support for the fundamentalist doctrines that arose during this period. Augustine believed that science and religion need not be in competition, and the Catholic Church has long held that evolution does not contradict the Church’s teachings. Fundamentalists who deny climate change and evolution have simply read their simplistic understanding of science into biblical texts.

Because the “fundamentalist problem” is not rooted in religion, the answer can’t be found in anti-theism, the preferred response of commentators like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Rather, American Protestants must learn to read the Bible as a religious text rather than a series of logical premises to be proven. The irony of debates like the one between Bill Nye and Ken Ham is that they pit two fundamentalist readers against each other. The fundamentalist Christian and the atheist both read the Bible as a series of falsifiable propositions — what Terry Eagleton calls the “Yeti” theory of belief. Disproving the creation narrative should strike any theologian as absurd — the way a literature professor would react if a student claimed to have “disproven” “Sons and Lovers.”

Religious conflicts can serve to obfuscate base political or economic motives. Christianity was used to justify slavery in the South, but it’s doubtful that without the Bible, Southerners would have freed their slaves (it may be worth noting that science was also used to justify racism, most famously documented in Stephen Jay Gould’s “Mismeasure of Man”).

In the same way that racism was read into the Bible, modern American Protestant positions, like climate change denialism and anti-evolutionary thinking, are being imposed on Scripture. The religious justification for denying climate change is tenuous, while the economic justification, for someone worried about keeping their job or filling up their tank, is not. Americans whose economic interests rely heavily on fossil-fuel-intensive industries aren’t keen to lower their standard of living by abandoning coal.

The upcoming Nye/Ham debate, and other debates like it, are merely reiterations of the classic debates between Adams and Jackson, Burke and Paine, Lippmann and Chomsky: the philosopher-king vs. the democrat. By singling out religion as the genesis of these anti-intellectual outbursts, the New Atheist movement only takes us away from the solution: divorcing religion and science. By claiming that religion needs to be abolished, the New Atheist movement justifies the worst fears of the religious. When a religious person makes a political assertion or an economic argument or a claim about science, it is exactly that: a disprovable assertion. Within religious circles, fundamentalists must be challenged (with appropriate love) for manipulating true religion.

The religious right’s stance on climate change, economics and evolution is not informed by their religious beliefs. Rather, these political and economic views are imposed on Scripture, which is often read without theological rigor. It is not religion that is the problem, but rather the use of religion as an ideological weapon. But to respond by using science as a weapon is equally problematic.

The best way to address the problem is to confront the underlying political and economic concerns that are obscured by religious dogma, rather than attacking the religion directly. Our problems require an entirely new political and economic paradigm, one that rests on understanding and empathetic action between people of all faiths. Religious reformers, concerned environmentalists, scientists and economists must work together toward a more sustainable future. Bill Nye is intensely concerned about climate change and evolution, as are we. He should therefore ally himself with sane religious leaders, rather than debate fundamentalists.

SOURCE:  New Atheism’s big mistake: Debating creationists solves nothing

Creation of the Universe: Six "Days" or Long Periods of Time

The descriptions of creation in the Quran are not intended as dry historical accounts, but rather to engage the reader in contemplating the lessons to be learned from it. The act of creation, therefore, is frequently spoken of as a way of drawing the reader into thinking about the order in all things, and the All-Knowing Creator Who is behind it all. For example:
"Verily in the heavens and the earth are signs for those who believe. And in the creation of yourselves, and the fact that animals are scattered (through the earth), are signs for those of assured faith. And in the alternation of night and day, and that fact that Allah sends down sustenance from the sky, and revives therewith the earth after its death, and in the change of the winds, are signs for those who are wise" (45:3-5).
Big Bang?
When describing the creation of the "heavens and the earth," the Quran does not discount the theory of a "Big Bang" explosion at the start of it all. In fact, the Quran says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30). Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (41:11). Thus the elements and what was to become the planets and stars began to cool, come together, and form into shape, following the natural laws that Allah established in the universe.
The Quran further states that Allah created the sun, the moon, and the planets, each with their own individual courses or orbits. "It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course" (21:33).
Expansion of Universe
The Quran also does not rule out the idea that the universe is continuing to expand. "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). There has been some historical debate among Muslim scholars about the precise meaning of this verse, since knowledge of the universe's expansion was only recently discovered.
Six Days?
The Quran states that "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54). While on the surface this might seem similar to the account related in the Bible, there are some important distinctions.
The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Quran, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). The word "youm" is thus understood, within the Qur'an, to be a long period of time -- an era or eon. Therefore, Muslims interpret the description of a "six day" creation as six distinct periods or eons. The length of these periods is not precisely defined, nor are the specific developments that took place during each period.
After completing the Creation, the Quran describes that Allah "settled Himself upon the Throne" (57:4) to oversee His work. A distinct point is made to counter the Biblical idea of a day of rest: "We created the heavens and the earth adn all that is between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us" (50:38).
Allah is never "done" with His work, because the process of creation is ongoing. Each new child who is born, every seed that sprouts into a sapling, every new species that appears on earth, is part of the ongoing process of Allah's creation. "He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then established Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters within the heart of the earth, and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven, and what mounts up to it. And He is with you wherever you may be. And Allah sees well all that you do" (57:4).
SOURCE: Creation of the Universe Six "Days" or Long Periods of Time by Huda

Common Misconceptions in Understanding 'Science'

There is a tendency for members of Western Societies to consider science as an accomplishment – a set of settled, known facts and values. Accompanying this attitude is one which considers Scientists (with a capital "S") to be authoritative and wise, knowledgeable in many things other than their specialty. It is a stereotype established by some of the notable scientific figures (and communicators) of the past and present: Einstein, Sagan, Hawking... and perpetuated by a media which treats the notion of scientific expertise as knowledge itself. The very presence of three little letters after a name –- P-h-D – is taken by many to be a mark of authority, and the "Scientist" is accorded credibility and wisdom well beyond their due.
This is curiously at odds with a society that simultaneously praises and distrusts science. We live in an age filled with the wonders of scientific advancement –- from medical/health care, to computers, to self-driving cars –- yet we also have groups that loudly proclaim their distrust of anything "technological" or "scientific" and turn toward mystical and superstitious explanations instead. But this is not intended as a political rant, and I am not necessarily referring to the groups and actions that you might infer from the title or previous statements. Read on, and let's look at what science is, who scientists are, and examine the ways in which Science, as a field, makes mistakes, changes its mind, and arrives at its findings. We will then compare and contrast those observations with the quasi-religious approach which declares that the scientific evidence for or against a particular subject is "settled", that there is "consensus" among all right-thinking scientists who support that view, and that the opposition are "not real scientists" at all.
The Scientific Method
One of the most important considerations in judging the pronouncements and proclamations of "Science" is to understand that science is a process of examination and exploration, not a "fact", pronouncement, or conclusion. In essence, science consists of formulating a hypothesis from observed facts, creating experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis, observing the results of the experiments, then making a conclusion to accept or reject the original hypothesis on the basis of those observations. This is commonly known as The Scientific Method and derives from Aristotle's original definitions of deductive reasoning.
"Science is a process, not a conclusion" -– you'll read that quite often in this article and in my other writing. I think that the exact wording is original to me, but it may have already escaped my control and entered the 'net at large, given that I use it quite often. I have a small plaque in my academic office which states: "Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind."  [I may have to use that in a title someday.] My graduate research mentor claimed that the plaque should read "Science is the process of going blindly to see if there are alleys."
But what does that say about the both scientific observation and conclusion? Certainly while one is *in* the alley, one can see *only* the alley, and it would be easy to conclude that the alley is in fact open, and not blind – until one reaches that blind end.  Yet the true methodology of science is not about going blindly at all. If you Google "Scientific Method" – you find a definition that states that first, one formulates a question, i.e. what do you want to study? Then initial observations are made from an uncontrolled, natural context or environment. From those observations, a hypothesis is formed and experiments are proposed which will test – under controlled conditions – whether that hypothesis is true or false. What is meant by controlled conditions? Basically, the experimenter must ensure that there are no external factors which could produce a result without the experimenter's knowledge (I'll give a specific example in the next paragraph). The experiment is conducted, the observations made (and statistically analyzed if necessary (and more on that much later), and a conclusion made about the validity of the hypothesis. Good scientists stick to making claims only about their hypothesis. Very good scientists use their old hypothesis to form new ones to further refine and test their conclusions.
Here's an example. Like many academics, I can't get seriously started on my morning work without a cup of coffee. I like hazelnut-flavored powdered creamer, and I have a one-cup-at-a-time coffee brewer. If I choose the wrong setting, the cup gets full, and I risk spilling coffee as I stir in the creamer. Or I could put the creamer in the mug before the coffee, but I still have to stir it. So is the spillage from the stirring, or does the creamer make the mug too full -– after all, it's a powder and it dissolves. It shouldn't take up too much space, right?
So there's my question: I want to know if the spilled coffee is due to adding the powdered creamer (and not simply splashing the coffee as I stir it). Let's work through the steps of the scientific method:Question –- does adding powder to a liquid increase the volume of the liquid?Initial observations –- adding a powder that has to be stirred does indeed cause my coffee mug to overflow, but maybe it's because I have to stir it too much. There are two possible solutions to this:The powder adds volume to the liquid, and it overflows because of added volume –- we can test this because the interaction of liquid and solid is consistent under controlled circumstances.The powder adds no volume, thus it must be my stirring that causes the overflow –- we really can't test this, since my stirring technique changes each time.Hypothesis (aka The Null Hypothesis, H0) –- powder dissolved in a liquid does not add any volume.Thus, we choose to test (and negate) my first possible solution.Note that this Null Hypothesis also implies an Alternate Hypothesis, HA, which states: Powder dissolved in a liquid does add volume to the liquid.Experiments:Put a measured amount of (liquid) coffee in a narrow, tall beaker with fine volume measurements engraved on the side. This is commonly known in the lab as a graduated cylinder.Allow the liquid to settle, and then measure the exact volume of the coffee.Measure a known weight (preferable to volume) of creamer to the liquid. Use tall enough beaker/cylinder and a means of stirring that will not allow any coffee to splash out.Stop stirring, allow the surface of the coffee to settle, and then measure the volume.Repeat several times and compare the measurements.Controls -- it is very important to perform your experiments under conditions such that there is no other cause of a change in the volume of the coffee.Since we know that heat causes liquids (water) to expand, and cold causes it to contract (until it ices and expands again) –- ensure that all tests are conducted using a thermometer to ensure the exact same temperature of coffee.Some powders are more dense (more weight per volume) than others, so always use the same type and brand of creamer, the same coffee, coffee maker, water, etc.Always allow the liquid to stop moving (from stirring and pouring) before measurement, and minimize the pouring or transfer of ingredients to avoid accidental spills.Analyze the data -- in our experiment, you will find that the creamer does indeed increase the volume of the coffee, but it may not be exactly the same each time because of factors outside of our control, such as variations in the packing density of the powdered creamer or small measurement errors. This is where statistics come in. Multiple repetitions of the experiment mean that we can calculate the average result (the Mean) and how much it randomly varies from trial-to-trial (the Variability). Variability is typically calculated as Standard Deviation, and generally, an experiment-induced change in the mean that is three times the Standard Deviation is considered "highly significant"Evaluate the hypothesis -- we observed that creamer does indeed increase the volume of the coffee. Thus we reject the Null Hypothesis and instead accept the Alternative Hypothesis.As good scientists, we can now entertain other questions, such as: Does temperature matter? What about sugar instead of creamer? Does the sequence (coffee first or creamer first) matter? What about different liquids? Unfortunately, our experiment does not enable us to answer those questions –- after all, we specifically set up the conditions so that those factors were controlled -- but it does provide us with the means to perform further experiments and find out new answers.
Please note that nowhere in this explanation did I mention "facts," "conclusions," "consensus," or "settled." That's because science describes the process of looking. If we find a blind alley, we know to go back and look in another place... but it we fail to find the blind wall at the end of the alley, do we really know that the alley is not blind? Or merely that we have not yet found the end? For that, let's look at some of Science's famous blind alleys.
Famous Scientific Blunders
The Science is Settled (Blunder #1) - The Sun revolves around the Earth
Okay, you should have seen this one coming; it's the favored example of those attacking nonscientists, religion, and the just plain ignorant. But looking at it from a scientist point of view: Question –- Why does the sun always rise in the East and set in the West? Observations: The sun, moon and stars always follow the same rotation around the Earth. Conclusion: The Earth is the center of the system of sun moon and stars. This Aristotelian or Ptolemaic view of the universe was settled science.
The conclusion is, in fact, scientifically sound for its day and age. While Aristotle is credited with the origins of the Scientific Method, he and the astronomer Ptolemy really didn't have a way to conduct controlled experiments on heliocentrism (Sun-centered) versus geocentrism (Earth-centered). However, what they knew was that they had no evidence that the Earth moved, and they certainly knew how to measure movement _– wind, birds, water, a rolling ball, stars in the night sky. In fact, Ptolemy was a skilled scientist: astronomer and geographer... for the second century A.D. He confirmed many of the measurements of Eratosthenes (third century B.C.) regarding the roundness and circumference of the Earth. He also refined the knowledge of optics in terms of reflection, refraction and much of our current knowledge of optical illusion. Yes, he got some measurements wrong, such as the exact circumference of the Earth, but he did not have all of the tools necessary for the experiments that would have disproved his Null Hypothesis.
It took Copernicus to put all of the additional scientific observation of more than thirteen centuries into a new theory of heliocentrism. If Ptolemy had had the vision (pun-intended) to look carefully at the apparent reversal in the orbit (aka "retrograde motion") of Mercury, Venus and Mars, he, too, might have substituted the Sun for the Earth as the center of his astronomic model. Indeed, while Geocentrism was compatible with (and eventually central to) the early Christian faith, the heliocentric model did gain religious acceptance, via Pope Clement VII. Copernicus himself held a doctorate in Canon Law (i.e. church law). Thanks to the wonderful research done by Baen authors Eric Flint and Andrew Dennis for 1634: The Galileo Affair, we also know that the popular view that Galileo's 17th century "apostasy" consisted of defying the Catholic Church over heliocentrism, was in fact over other violations of church doctrine, rather than heliocentrism, which had been gaining Church acceptance for more than a century.
It is also useful to note that in disrupting the settled science of geocentrism and replacing it with heliocentrism, Copernicus was also guilty of accepting a conclusion that would later be proven false. By the 18th – 19th Centuries, William Herschel and Friedrich Bessel were showing that the sun might be the center of the solar system, but not of the universe. With Edwin Hubble's astronomical observations of the 20th Century, we started to get a view of our galaxy – indeed of multiple galaxies, and the study continues to expand our scientific knowledge of the universe, including results from the orbital telescope which bears Hubble's name.
In astronomical physics, science is not a conclusion: not geocentrism or even really heliocentrism, but a process of investigation, observation, testing and refinement to this day. My favorite example of continued scientific investigation was performed on the Moon on August 2, 1971, when Astronaut Dave Scott (Apollo 15) dropped a hammer and a feather onto the moon's surface. After three and a half centuries, they continued Galileo's famous experiments in gravity to demonstrate that (in the absence of air resistance) weight and volume were irrelevant to gravitational attraction. Science is ongoing, and never satisfied.
The Science is Settled (Blunder #2) – The human body is regulated by four "humours" which control health, emotion and mental state
Back when I was a student, I attended two years of medical school. That has how it was done in those dark ages [grin!], either physicians needed a firm grounding in physiology and pharmacology, or physiologists/pharmacologists needed a firm grounding in human systems (i.e. medicine). In the course (again, pun-intended) of study, we learned much of the history of medicine and related fields. Dating back (again) to Aristotle, there was a theory of four humours or bodily fluids, which governed health and wellbeing of a person. If the blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile were in balance, a person was healthy, but diseases were thought to result from an imbalance of the biles. If a person was courageous and hopeful, but overly amorous, they had an abundance of blood; cowardice or failing libido was thought to reflect too little blood – strangely attributed to the liver, and not the heart. Yellow bile, from the gall bladder, was associated with anger and bad temper; black bile (from the spleen, with irritability, depression and sleeplessness. Phlegm, from the brain and/or lungs was associated with calm, but also lack of emotion. From these humours, we also got the names for temperaments: sanguine (blood), choleric (yellow bile), melancholic (black bile) and phlegmatic (phlegm).
Pretty archaic and backward, right? Modern science would never admit that this theory or its originator has a place in the practice of medicine – or would they? Except the historical personage associated with the theory was Hippocrates, known as the Father of Medicine, and for whom the Hippocratic Oath (medical ethics most famous guideline: "First do no harm") is named. The concept of humours likely originated in the 5th century B.C., and was actually primarily promoted by the Greek physician Galen in the 3rd century A.D. Despite this now disproven settled science of medicine, Galen's work forms the foundation of much of what we now know about human anatomy, physiology and neurology. Even as the Hippocratic theory of humours waned, Galen's theories on anatomy, and particularly, the circulatory system were accepted settled science until the 17th century when English physician William Harvey demonstrated that venous blood did not originate in the liver, but instead, the venous and arterial system were a single system with two (actually four) components. Galen (and Hippocrates) were hampered by law forbidding dissection and investigation of human corpses, and by the lack of technology which would have kept their vivisection subjects alive long enough to completely figure out mammalian physiology. Still, Galen was a scientist; he hypothesized, experimented, analyzed, and constantly revised his theories.
Strangely, the theory of humours almost received verification in the 20th century with the experiments of Otto Loewi, who demonstrated that a fluid collected from the vagus nerve would control the heart rate in a frog. Loewi electrically stimulated the intact vagus nerve, and it slowed the heart. He then took fluid from around the heart, transferred it to a second frog, and the fluid alone slowed the second frog's heart. Was this evidence of humours? Or something else. Fortunately, by this day, Loewi was on the trail of neurotransmitters and hormones –- chemicals secreted by cells in the brain, nerves, adrenal glands, and other secretory organs -- which served to transfer control signals from the brain to the rest of the body. Many of these hormones circulate freely in the blood, much like the humours proposed more than 20 centuries earlier.
We now know much more about medicine and the human body, and we pretty much know where Hippocrates, Galen and others went wrong. When blood collects and settles, it forms four layers: a clot (black), blood cells (red), lymphocytes (white) and plasma (yellow). Hormones do circulate in the blood, and some diseases, and disorders result from a disruption in the normal circulatory, hormonal and even neurotransmitter systems. Still, the theory of humours survived for well over a thousand years -- not universally and not without modification -- but it took more advanced science to disprove this settled science.
The Science is Settled (Blunder # 3) – Dinosaurs were cold-blooded, dumb lizards (with a brain the size of a walnut)
The Chinese were known to have found bones of konglong or "terrible dragons" since the Western Jin Dynasty of the late 3rd century A.D. but it was not until the mid 19th century that English paleontologist Richard Owen coined the term "dinosaur" for the gigantic fossil creatures first reported in scientific journals less than 20 years previously. Until the first American fossil Hadrosaurus was discovered in Haddonfield, NJ in 1858, everybody knew that dinosaurs were four legged giant reptiles. That Hadrosaurus was clearly bipedal upset the early settled science and consensus that had arisen in scant 40 years of this nascent science.
Other blunders which were, for a time, considered settled science included a rather famous "duel" between two 19th century dinosaur hunters. Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel Charles Marsh competed to see who could identify the most new species or classifications of dinosaurs. In a move reminiscent of a particular scientifically contested topic of today, Cope and Marsh schemed, ridiculed, diverted specimens and even publically fought over their dinosaur identifications in a feud that came to be known as the Bones Wars. Marsh accused Cope of incompetence when he pointed out that Cope had reconstructed an Elasmosaurus incorrectly, putting the head at the end of the tail. Marsh, however, was not without fault. In 1877, Marsh reported a new species, Apatosaurus, based only on discovery of a spine. Two years later, Marsh improved the description with an illustration of pelvis (hip) and vertebra (spinal) bones; and then described another species, which he called the "thunder lizard," Brontosaurus¸ based on pelvis, vertebrae and shoulder blade. Within the next 20 years, an intact Brontosaurus skeleton was unearthed and went on display at Yale University. Alas, poor Dino was actually an Apatosaurus -- the two species were actually juvenile and adult versions of the same dinosaur. In a further insult (or karmic justice), the Yale skeleton was not complete, lacking a skull, and Marsh had used a skull from another dig. It took nearly 100 years for the final correction to occur -- the Yale "Brontosaurus" had the body of an Apatosaurus and the head of a Camarasaurus! The history of the Apatosaurus/Brontosaurusmistake is interesting, and I can recommend a nice article about the controversy at the Museum of Unnatural Mystery website at http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm. The science may have been "settled" at one time, but scientists are human, subject to the same mistakes and petty jealousies of any of us, and this case illustrates those faults very well.
Back to our section title, however... Soon after Charles Darwin published his book, Origin of Species, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley proposed that birds had evolved from dinosaurs. However, the consensus of the time was that dinosaurs were cold blooded lizards, not avian at all. In fact, the flying reptiles -- Pterodactyl and Archaeopteryx are not classified as dinosaurs at all. Yet in the 1970's, discovery of the clearly bird-like Deinonychus, and in the 1990's, the feathered dinosaur remains in China confirmed Huxley's conjecture, and has convinced most of the field to accept this new theory. The final blow to the concept of dinosaurs as cold-blooded lizards comes, starting with Deinonychus and the discovery of soft-tissue impressions (and actual preserved tissue) revealing the structure of inner organs of dinosaurs and leading to theories that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
The history of dinosaur science is fascinating, and an excellent capsule view of the premise of this article. Science is never settled; scientists are constantly finding new data and revising old assumptions. In addition, scientists themselves are human and can even have some pretty big flaws. By the way, it's been fun researching the material for this essay, and I reiterate my recommendation of the Museum of Unnatural Mystery link provided above. There's some great explanations and Q&A there.
Scientific theories change all the time:In the 1970's, scientists predicted global cooling. In the 1990's and 2000's it was global warming, in the 2010's there's again talk of cooling.For centuries, gastric (stomach) ulcers were thought to be due to stress, spicy foods and excess stomach acid, until 1984, when Australian physician Barry Marshall drank a culture of Helicobacter pylorii and developed stomach ulcers from the bacteria alone.Newton, Einstein and Hawking have each had the final word in the field of Physics -- at least until the next run of the Large Hadron Collider.No human could survive transonic speeds... until Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier; no human could survive the radiation of space... until the Soviet and American astronauts spent days in orbit in the 1960's; no human could survive the passage through or space outside the Van Allen radiation belts... until the Apollo moon missions.The pesticide DDT was used to kill mosquitoes, particularly in regions of the world prone to malaria. However, it was proven that DDT to cause the shells of bird eggs to become thinner, thus endangering many species if DDT use continued... until it was determined that the report amount of thinning was actually smaller than the margin of error for the measuring instruments of the time.Human memory is mystical and metaphysical, with no connection between the mind and the brain... until it was demonstrated that memory is associated with specific anatomical areas of the brain... and then it was discovered that trained flatworms could be ground up, and molecules extracted and fed to other flatworms who then had the "memory" without the need to learn... except that memory requires specific patterns of anatomical connections, and chemical and electrical signals... until it was found last year that some memories may actually consist of molecules that can be inherited! [But that's a topic worthy of its own article!]
The hallmark of science is that it is always hypothesizing, always collecting data, always testing, and always refining or looking for new theories. In fact, the only indication of a good theory is whether one can make valid predictions with the theory. One successful prediction, however, is not enough -- after all, just one failed prediction negates a theory, one correct prediction simply means the theory works for now, or until a failed prediction or a more comprehensive theory comes along.
In fact, I am often asked how a scientist with a personal religious faith can reconcile evolutionary theory with that faith. My response is that a scientist uses theories all the time. Their job is not to judge the truth of a theory, but rather its utility. As long as a theory is consistent with observations, can be used to test and/or predict the data one has in hand, and successfully predicts results, it is a useful theory. The concepts of truth or belief are irrelevant to the Scientific Method, and should never contaminate the science.
* * *
This brings us to the next phase of this essay—which we will cover next month in Part Two: the fallibility of scientists themselves and the false notion of "consensus in science.”
SOURCE: Why Science is Never Settled, Part One  by Tedd RobertsTedd Roberts is the pseudonym of neuroscience researcher Robert E. Hampson, Ph.D., whose cutting edge research includes work on a "Neural Prosthetic" to restore memory function following brain injury. His interest in public education and brain awareness has led him to the goal of writing accurate, yet enjoyable brain science via blogging, short fiction, and nonfiction/science articles for the SF/F community.

"Oh, I like it fine. I just said that other stuff because it was you."

About a year ago, Jason Cherkis published an anecdote so popular, even President Obama repeated it.
It featured a middle-aged man in a golf shirt who shuffled up to a small folding table at the Kentucky State Fair to hear about Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by the Affordable Care Act. The man liked what he heard. “This beats Obamacare I hope,” he said, apparently unaware that Kynect and Obamacare are the same thing.
Today, however, Abby Goodnough has another health care anecdote out of Kentucky that’s nearly as striking.

The Affordable Care Act allowed Robin Evans, an eBay warehouse packer earning $9 an hour, to sign up for Medicaid this year. She is being treated for high blood pressure and Graves’ disease, an autoimmune disorder, after years of going uninsured and rarely seeing doctors.
“I’m tickled to death with it,” Ms. Evans, 49, said of her new coverage as she walked around the Kentucky State Fair recently with her daughter, who also qualified for Medicaid under the law. “It’s helped me out a bunch.”
But Ms. Evans scowled at the mention of President Obama – “Nobody don’t care for nobody no more, and I think he’s got a lot to do with that,” she explained – and said she would vote this fall for Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, who is fond of saying the health care law should be “pulled out root and branch.”

Just so we’re clear, this voter loves her new health care benefits. She also wants to vote for a politician who’s desperate to take her new health care benefits away.
It’s a reminder that voting isn’t always rational, but it’s also an example of just how messy the politics of health care can get.
Goodnough’s broader point is important: the Affordable Care Act is doing a lot of good for families in red states like Kentucky, but this won’t pay any political dividends to Democrats.
Part of this is the result of partisan perceptions that, at least for now, have proven unshakable. Jonathan Cohn noted a recent survey that bolsters what’s long been apparent: the public supports what’s in the health care law far more than they support the law itself. “When people say they have negative feelings about Obamacare, they may not be talking about the law itself,” Cohn explained. “They may be reacting to the president who signed it.”
But while this makes it difficult for Democrats to capitalize, it also puts Republicans in the awkward position of condemning law that offers benefits Americans want and expect. Greg Sargent had a good take on this today:

Republicans have been forced to adjust to the reality that people like what’s in the law, which has left them essentially running against the word Obamacare while professing, to varying degrees, support for the law’s general goals and fudging on whether they would take its benefits away from people. The basic strategy of Republicans has been to campaign on repeal while leaving the vague impression that we’ll be able to keep the good stuff in the law without the bad.
This is why Obamacare has faded, at least to some degree, as a driving political issue. Politico’s David Nather has a great piece explaining that the law has now become political “wallpaper” more than anything else…. Or, put another way, the law has become primarily useful as a way to channel disapproval of the law’s creator, and attendant doubts about government and the economy, in the direction of Dem incumbents and candidates.

Away from the political maneuvering, meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act itself continues to plow forward, working as intended. The uninsured rate continues to drop; the list of Medicaid-expansion states is steadily growing; the latest information on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance looks encouraging; and the “death spiral” has become a “life spiral.”
Sarah Kliff recently added that “we’re starting to get a shockingly better deal in a way that has giant consequences for how America spends money.” She labeled it the “get more, pay less” era of health care spending.
No matter how they vote in November, a growing number of Americans will continue to say “I’m tickled to death with it” when asked about the results of the ACA.
SOURCE: ‘I’m tickled to death with it’