@CaptainHarley If some of you responding to this question AREN’T threatened by it somehow, why do you begin foaming at the mouth and gnawing on the rug whenever the subject is brought up?
Personally, and I’m speaking for myself and myself only, I don’t like science being shat on and used as a cloak to hide your bullshit behind in order to make money. You can (claim to) be a scientist all you fucking want, and you can still be a greedy morally bankrupt fraud who’s good at parlour tricks. I can assure you that the simple fact that he starts with “objects are possibilities” makes all sorts of bullshit alerts go off in my head. Why? Because possibility != probability, and anyone who’s ever opened a book about statistics knows this.
Furthermore because this is exactly the kind of bullshit that “The secret” tried to peddle already, with moderate success amongst the high-on-cash-low-on-brains demographics in the US, managing to get support from dumb cunts like Oprah and Ellen DeGeneres (Two people whose success i still can’t swallow) only dressed up in a lab-coat. I’d love to see these people choose not to get hit by a truck, not to have cancer and not to die the day we finally deem fraud a capital offence.
And to put the fucking cherry on top: it’s all unfalsifiable and easily believed by the single gullible individual. I call major league bullshit.
All of the people I have quoted are scientists!
In the sense that they have PhDs, yes. Fritjof Capra has fuckall to do with quantum physics (according to wikipedia, which is as far as I’m willing to go to debunk this obvious bullshit, to be honest) and mister Amit Goswami Is a teacher of theoretical physics. This just for the record.
Should i care? No. Because the mere fact that one is a scientist has no bearing on his claims and, since you claim you know something about science, you should know better than suggest so. Being a scientist doesn’t mean you’re right, it means you’ve been trained in the scientific method. Whether you use it and use it properly is entirely another matter, and it’s clearly not the case with mister Goswami since he bases his whole ” theory ” (with massive sarcastic quote marks) on an unfalsifiable assumption that defies Occam’s razor and is in direct opposition to everything the scientific method stands for, namely that consciousness came first and that reality is strictly subjective. Which is funny because he claims this to be a scientific position, but the scientific method can only work assuming that reality is objective, making this a self defeating point.
I can list off several reasons why a scientist could say something like this: To make a quick buck off the gullible, to feel he’s actually accomplished something in his 32 years of teaching, to push forward his favourite ethical and moral model surreptitiously, to calm down his internal debate on whether his unscientific beliefs are justified, because he’s genuinely convinced, for shits and giggles or a mix of any given number of the above. None of these reasons mean he’s right, he’s human, like the rest of us, he can be wrong, that’s why we have experiments and that’s why scientists don’t need to ask people to believe them on their word.
If Mr Goswami is seriously convinced that reality is subjective, I suggest he jump straight in front of a speeding truck. If it is subjective he’ll survive but he will be dead to me, if it isn’t he’ll be dead, to me and to the world. Either way I won’t have to listen to this shit.