The 'God particle'

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In search of a scientific explanation for religion:
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10903480&fsrc=nwl

Of any interest to RHP heads?

My mistake. Rephrased.

(But why is the Higgs boson referred to as the 'God particle'?)

Originally posted by Palynka

Your silly act as "Defender of the Science Forum" is obviously getting to your head.

Naive scientism often leads to a univocal zealotry difficult to distinguish from the religious variety.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In search of a scientific explanation for religion:
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10903480&fsrc=nwl

Of any interest to RHP heads?

I particularly enjoyed the part about the neurological differences between believers and non-believers.

I find it interesting that the PET scans of Christian believers reading Psalms stimulated the regions known for their involvement in rational thought. As an atheist, I would expect them to be similar to the children's story (at least from 'naive'/passive readings of the text).

I also like that there seems to be a deliberate role for pluridisciplinarity, which is in general absent from non-coordinated individual studies.

Originally posted by Palynka
I particularly enjoyed the part about the neurological differences between believers and non-believers.

I find it interesting that the PET scans of Christian believers reading Psalms stimulated the regions known for their involvement in rational thought. As an atheist, I would expect them to be similar to the children's story (at least from 'naive'/passiv ...[text shortened]... for pluridisciplinarity, which is in general absent from non-coordinated individual studies.

It seems that 'belief' is healthy, whatever its object ... Can we bottle the stuff?

I'd like to see scans of Psalms being read in translation versus Psalms being recited in Hebrew by a cantor. Bet the needle jumps off the scale!

Pluridiscplinarity is a prerequisite for cultural studies in post-modern times; has science lagged behind this development?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Pluridiscplinarity is a prerequisite for cultural studies in post-modern times; has science lagged behind this development?

I can only talk about physics and in that case the answer is an obvious no. I don't know if you know whar dynamical systems are but they are the very definition of pluridisciplinarity/multidisciplinarity/transversality or whatever term people are most fond of. In dynamical systems anything that has a time evolution can be studied. We have physicists, mathematicians, biologists (the so called hard-sciences). But then of course we have the stockmarket studies and all other areas of economy. But this is not all. More and more people in humanities are becoming aware of the importance of dynamical studies. I remember last year reading a new that a model for nation conflict being made and having good results. People in history are using some models too.

One time I was working in a conference and my thing was to tell people a about two models on AIDS infection and fire spread in forests and possible ways to counter those two things. One time a friend of mine worked for a semester in languages evolution... And the list can go on and on.

The main difficulty on transdisciplinarity in science is findind methods that work on a great deal of situations. For a long time things were too locked in themselves. For instance you could have a plasma physicist reading a paper on particle physics and not understanding a thing. Nowadays things are changing a little bit cause more and more methods that work on very different levels are being found but I think that we can always count on the two methods to coexist.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I can only talk about physics and in that case the answer is an obvious no. I don't know if you know whar dynamical systems are but they are the very definition of pluridisciplinarity/multidisciplinarity/transversality or whatever term people are most fond of. In dynamical systems anything that has a time evolution can be studied. We have physicists, ma ...[text shortened]... rent levels are being found but I think that we can always count on the two methods to coexist.

I think we're talking about a different notion of multi-disciplinarity.

Your notion, deals with the inter-disciplinary use of methods, while I (and perhaps Bosse) were mentioning the interdisciplinary study of some phenomena. The crucial difference is that one deals with methodology while the other deals with the overlapping of subjects. I think that the latter is of huge importance in social sciences while it is perhaps less so in exact sciences (the different nature of the empirical work is probably key here).

To answer Bosse's remark, I'd say that multidisciplinarity, in the latter sense, it is less important in exact sciences where compartimentalization is often possible and the sum of parts is often the whole. In the context of social sciences, compartimentalization is often impossible and therefore the sum of parts severs the links between those parts.

Still, the nature of paper-oriented research makes it very hard and perhaps discourages the coordination needed for such multidisciplinary studies. This is why I think that working under a large umbrella like this project be a way of providing the necessary incentives.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It seems that 'belief' is healthy, whatever its object ... Can we bottle the stuff?

It's still early to tell. It seems to be good regarding the prevalence rates of Parkinson, but who knows if it has negative effects on the prevalence rates of other diseases?

Also, it's interesting that it increases dopamine levels and too high levels of dopamine are related with psychosis and schizophrenia, two psychological diseases that lead to detachment from reality. An explanation for the power of religious fanaticism?

Originally posted by Palynka
I think we're talking about a different notion of multi-disciplinarity.

Your notion, deals with the inter-disciplinary use of methods, while I (and perhaps Bosse) were mentioning the interdisciplinary study of some phenomena. The crucial difference is that one deals with methodology while the other deals with the overlapping of subjects. I think that the ...[text shortened]... king under a large umbrella like this project be a way of providing the necessary incentives.

I think so too. And in the sense you are using the word I agree with you. A multidiscplinar study of a phenomena might not be the best thing to do in the exact sciences. At leats I don't see anyway that that could work.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In search of the Higgs boson:
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10903480&fsrc=nwl

Of any interest to RHP heads?

Where does the Higgs come into all this? The article is about the effective brainwashing techniques of religious practice, big brother in the sky is watching you, better not screw up. The greatest invention in mind control since the advent of the shaman. You realize it has nothing to do with an actual god, this effect is mind control pure and simple.

Originally posted by Palynka
It's still early to tell. It seems to be good regarding the prevalence rates of Parkinson, but who knows if it has negative effects on the prevalence rates of other diseases?

Also, it's interesting that it increases dopamine levels and too high levels of dopamine are related with psychosis and schizophrenia, two psychological diseases that lead to detachment from reality. An explanation for the power of religious fanaticism?

And that is only personal health anyway. There is the much more complex societal health to consider too. Suicide bombers may have very good health but that doesn't drive up their life expectancy or that of their victims.
Also one should look at the effects on health of minorities ie those that are not members of the dominant religion in a society.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where does the Higgs come into all this? The article is about the effective brainwashing techniques of religious practice, big brother in the sky is watching you, better not screw up. The greatest invention in mind control since the advent of the shaman. You realize it has nothing to do with an actual god, this effect is mind control pure and simple.

The article drew upon research for the Higgs boson to show how the
equivalent funding could be spent on an understanding of how and
why the human brain uses religion.

Would you agree that in science it is important not to give the results
of an experiment to a degree of accuracy beyond the measuring
apparatus?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The article is about the effective brainwashing techniques of religious practice, big brother in the sky is watching you, better not screw up.

No, the article is not about that at all.

Originally posted by Palynka

Also, it's interesting that it increases dopamine levels and too high levels of dopamine are related with psychosis and schizophrenia, two psychological diseases that lead to detachment from reality. An explanation for the power of religious fanaticism?

Everything in moderation, from jogging to religion ...

Perhaps (religious) faith healing leverages an enhanced placebo effect. After all, Prozac works, even though it really doesn't.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Everything in moderation, from jogging to religion ...

Perhaps (religious) faith healing leverages an enhanced placebo effect. After all, Prozac works, even though it really doesn't.

Could it be that there is another organisational trait running through
us that evolution, in the classical sense, cannot account for.

Evolution assumes that we are the product of a series of adaptations
induced by finding best practices under changing, external environmental
conditions. Does this really take into account the modern adaptational
power of the brain?

I believe that Dopamine, Noradrenaline and 5HT play crucial parts
in stabalising these adaptations by providing a form of euphoria
that we call 'sense'.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What spiritual identity? Such was thought in the dark ages by the priests. Now spiritual identity is thought of being religous in its kind.

And 'do we really want to disolve religion'? Does anyone really want to discuss religion here in the Science Forum?

I say that a discussion about the Higg's particle is very much more science.

yeap religion and other dogmas SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN in science forums