I accuse the GE Seralini on GMOs

[izentrop]

as a "scientific" reference (you must be able to do better than quote this rag of nonsense.)

The Cosmic Teapot refers to Russell's teapot and the burden of proof that it is not for the skeptic to refute the unverifiable allegations of the believer, but for the believer to provide evidence of his assertions.

[Janic]

janic wrote: as a "scientific" reference (you must be able to do better than quote this rag of nonsense.)

The Cosmic Teapot refers to Russell's teapot and the burden of proof that it is not for the skeptic to refute the unverifiable allegations of the believer, but for the believer to provide evidence of his assertions.

I have already read this speech which is lame because it is an anti-religious speech, not scientific.
This does not prevent the authors of this site received a funny shot on their teapot to release this kind of nonsense.
Now for the example:
the first space probe (should I say teapot?) was sent to 1959 in space and since then many other teapots have followed. Before these, no one could have proved, and even now, that the teapot that Gagarin has thrown out of the garbage hatch, flies around the ground because it is too small to be detected among the millions of garbage we left behind. in the space. But those who are sent know that this object is there indeed, but would be unable to prove it to the skeptical public lost in the depths of the Amazon rainforest (although now they themselves are equipped with smartphones ), they would have no proof provided that there is a teapot in orbit.
Indeed " it is not the skeptic to refute the unverifiable allegations of the believer, but the believer to bring the proof of his affirmations »
Now reported on the latest quotes, these scientists are effectively asking for evidence and not for authoritative speeches: "Second, the benefits of vaccines have been established beyond any questionable shadow," it is no longer a shadow, it is is the dark night! what am I saying a real black hole! So these are definitely nonsense!

[izentrop]

janic wrote: as a "scientific" reference (you must be able to do better than quote this rag of nonsense.)
"The Cosmic Teapot refers to Russell's teapot and the burden of proof principle, according to which it is not for the skeptic to refute the believer's unverifiable claims, but for the believer to prove his claims. ""

I have already read this speech which is lame because it is an anti-religious speech, not scientific.

A believer is not necessarily religious, only full of certainties that he must prove if he wants to be taken seriously.

[Janic]

I have already read this speech which is lame because it is an anti-religious speech, not scientific.

Russell's teapot (sometimes called celestial teapot) is an analogy evoked by Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), to challenge the idea that it is the skeptic of refute the "unverifiable" bases of religion and to affirm that it is rather for the believer to prove them.
According to wikipedia

A believer is not necessarily religious,

You go in my direction because I say and repeat that believe is a universal phenomenon because everyone believes in anything in terms of religion, economy, ecology, science, GMO, etc ....

only filled with certainties that he must prove if he wishes to be taken seriously.

This is where the rub, believe does not require demonstration or evidence. If you have ever been in love, you would have been hard pressed to scientifically prove this peculiarity that a simple game of hormones and other biological or psychological manifestations do not explain. And yet this intimate certainty you will have taken seriously.
We must stop reducing everything to simple thermodynamic phenomena (as Sen no sen would say) which nevertheless participate in it.
And finally, as I have already pointed out elsewhere, all living beings breathed and breathed without any explanation or proof that the air sucked contained oxygen and nitrogen, mainly, and that oxygen was fixed in the blood, etc ... while the surgery was stammering (even ignored and even rejected) and the gas exchange phenomena were unknown. And yet for thousands of years people have breathed without evidence. It is refusing to breathe that would not have been taken seriously, always without scientific evidence.
Science, in the literal sense of increasing knowledge, (without limitation to material phenomena that are dependent on machines with limited possibilities by the imagination of their designers) is and is only a means to the service of the spirit without which all science becomes useless, even dangerous. And the mind is, materially, impossible to prove.

[pedrodelavega]

Science, in the literal sense of increasing knowledge, (without limitation to material phenomena that are dependent on machines with limited possibilities by the imagination of their designers) is and is only a means to the service of the spirit without which all science becomes useless, even dangerous. And the mind is, materially, impossible to prove.

Science is a means at the service of the mind without which all science becomes useless?

[sen-no-sen]

It is refusing to breathe that would not have been taken seriously, always without scientific evidence.
Science, in the literal sense of increasing knowledge, (without limitation to material phenomena that are dependent on machines with limited possibilities by the imagination of their designers) is and is only a means to the service of the spirit without which all science becomes useless, even dangerous. And the mind is, materially, impossible to prove.

Interesting remark.
What is your definition of the mind Janic?

[Janic]

What is your definition of the Janic spirit?

and you?
Have we already had this question, from memory?
More than one philosopher, more than one theologian has broken his teeth as the points of view are different
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/esprit
and there is already enough to break your teeth too.

So, I have already expressed it as a usual metaphor.
An automobile is only a set of different organs that alone do not work (it's the body) which drives it is the driver who will control this or that non-automatic function (this is the spirit) independent of the latter. The whole will give the impression of life, it moves makes the noise, it stinks ... like us and as will say the unconditional fans of the car, "she has a personality, a soul" as we do this.
and therefore as this biblical passage says: "may your whole being, body, soul and spirit be kept without reproach until the day of judgment"

[sen-no-sen]

So, I have already expressed it as a usual metaphor.
An automobile is only a set of different organs that alone do not work (it's the body) which drives it is the driver who will control this or that non-automatic function (this is the spirit) independent of the latter. The whole will give the impression of life, it moves makes the noise, it stinks ... like us and as will say the unconditional fans of the car, "she has a personality, a soul" as we do this.
and therefore as this biblical passage says: "may your whole being, body, soul and spirit be kept without reproach until the day of judgment"

The notion of spirit does indeed have a large number of definitions.
In the dualism of Descartes there would exist a body and a separate spirit, your analogy seems to be situated on that side, it seems to me?
The mind is thus often associated with mental activities, yet the mental activity results solely from the physical functions, which makes say for millennia, especially in the tradition of yoga that the body and the mind are one.

Regarding your analogy, we are asking ourselves the question, who is the driver?
Knowing that the driver is endowed with a brain one can recognize the fact that his thought comes from this one, so is it impossible for science to study it?

[Janic]

The notion of spirit does indeed have a large number of definitions.

In the dualism of Descartes there exists a body and a separate mind, your analogy seems to be situated on that side, it seems to me?

Absolutely ! But not by a pseudo-scientific approach with limits limited to current knowledge. As for metaphysics, it's very subjective too!

The mind is thus often associated with mental activities, yet the mental activity results solely from the physical functions, which makes say for millennia, especially in the tradition of yoga that the body and the mind are one.

This is the difficulty of knowing whether there is distinction or assimilation.
In the metaphor, the vehicle having all its functionalities present and possible, is a product "dead" not even a coma. In a thousand years, it will not have moved an inch and rusted until its final destruction.
The driver represents the spirit, that is to say, different and separate from this mechanism.
Only the spirit is useless as a means of displacement, only the body can move itself and therefore, it is the union by functional necessity of the two which gives an animated individual (who has a soul) and there one gets closer to the yoga which finds this union without being able to explain it and refusing, in principle, to envisage an external intervention, that gives their philosophico-religious step.

Regarding your analogy, we are asking ourselves the question, who is the driver?

All metaphors are not exact answers, but lines of thought and all reflection does not necessarily have a rational answer.
In this analogy there is only the finding that the vehicle has no ability to move without external intervention (even with current computers that are directed from the outside too)

Knowing that the driver is endowed with a brain one can recognize the fact that his thought comes from this one, so is it impossible for science to study it?

We can think, imagine anything we want, but the metaphor does not take into account the difference between an "immaterial mind" and a conductor which is material to it, made up of a body like a robot directing another robot and it can last a long time like that. We can therefore study robots endlessly, but not the imaginative thought of the designer even with medical images and piles of electrodes, because matter is limited by matter and its instruments.
and it is difficult and even unimaginable to conceive that beyond a material world there can be something (someone for some) that is not and has not been brought into existence and therefore IS of all eternity beyond space and time, to use the formula of .... ?
So it's useless to masturbate the brain to find an answer, when we are not even made to find it. That's the faith: Believe without seeing our blind eyes! All this has already been seen and reviewed elsewhere.

[sen-no-sen]

We can think, imagine anything we want, but the metaphor does not take into account the difference between an "immaterial mind" and a conductor which is material to it, made up of a body like a robot directing another robot and it can last a long time like that. We can therefore study robots endlessly, but not the imaginative thought of the designer even with medical images and piles of electrodes, because matter is limited by matter and its instruments.
and it is difficult and even unimaginable to conceive that beyond a material world there can be something (someone for some) that is not and has not been brought into existence and therefore IS of all eternity beyond space and time, to use the formula of .... ?
So it's useless to masturbate the brain to find an answer, when we are not even made to find it. That's the faith: Believe without seeing our blind eyes! All this has already been seen and reviewed elsewhere.

We must see what we mean by spirit, under pain of committing a blunder.
To think that thought (sic!) Is a supernatural activity is a serious mistake.
One can very well demonstrate nowadays that the action is preliminary to the "decision", illusion constituted by our mind, the self.
The mistake is to believe that the self will survive death and be independent of the body, as is the case in the belief in reincarnation.

From then on, I do not see how science would serve the mind? But if you consider the spirit as above?