Some "anti-scientific" beliefs or interests you, as a Dem, have. I have my share.

Someone else here on DU raised this topic, and I think it is a great topic, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I do entertain non-scientific beliefs.

Mine are not convictions, but hopes or interests:

1. Buddhist beliefs about how the world works and what may happen to us after we leave this life.
2. Remote Viewing as a skill, which I experiment with and that does fascinate me.
3. Certain aspects of reported cases of reincarnation, or the effect of organ transplant on the recipient.
4. How particular supplements, herbs, etc... might play a role in fighting cancer, as well as some other odd health concepts such as caloric restriction, fasting, excessive exercise, etc...

Every one of these beliefs or "hopes" can be justifiably criticized as unscientific, as fatuous desire and desperate fantasy. I know that. I accept that. I don't think of this particular characteristic--entertaining the possibility that unproven, unscientific concepts might be desirable or possible--is the domain of the Right or the Republicans.

I don't think I've ever attacked anyone for having odd beliefs. I only get upset at actions that have real world consequences.

So, I confess to be a Liberal Democrat with beliefs and hopes that are obviously and patently unscientific.

I even collect books about the possibility of life after death for my pets!

So, there you go.

In my own defense, I also subscribe to SKEPTIC magazine, and read not just medical studies favorable to my view, but those that dispute them as well--disappointing though they often are. And I change my behavior accordingly; to wit, giving up supplements that are demonstrated to have no value when it comes to preventing a disease, etc...


Anybody else here feel like confessing?

believes or has faith in unscientific things, it's whether you refuse to accept scientific findings because you believe certain things. There are lots of scientists who are Christians or Buddhists or Jews or whatever. They're able to separate faith from science.

I accept both science and faith, and I think over time science will validate faith in certain things which will turn faith into science :)

and I believe it's possible to live a better life by reading and responding to the patterns of causality in the universe. It's not even mysticism, but a different kind of logic. I'm married to a witch who believes in a lot of things that I don't believe in. But I've seen her accomplish things I would've said were impossible. So I reserve judgment on a lot of things because I don't have all the facts.

"...entertaining the possibility..."

The problem is dogma.

"...it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

I entertain lots of possibilities.
I don't expect others to agree with them.

Since when does the word "science" mean it has to be created in a laboratory and patented by a corporation?

To the contrary, science means "knowledge" and what could benefit humanity more than the knowledge of how to use the medicines we already have to treat, and yes even prevent, illness.

I find your beliefs to be unsupported by facts or anything you might have said.

Why DO you believe this crap? Any reasons?

No, not really.

It's all a load of crap.

I can't think that we've figured everything out and am open minded to the unexpected (I would LOVE to see a UFO, for example!).

Herbal remedies are interesting, and I think there are two aspects - those rooted in true pharmalogical effects (such as antiinflammatory substances like curcumin - turmeric - and boswellia, used for thousands of years...the two issues being lack of double blind placebo testing, and of regulation. The other aspect is the placebo effect - if we believe it helps us, we experience relief.

All very interesting stuff!

spreading them is another.

or not, as you describe in your next to last line.

An interesting phenomenon I have witnessed is craps (dice) players in casinos trying to control the throw of the dice so they can roll certain winning numbers. It's impossible of course, the way craps tables are designed they have diamonds that protrude from the surface of the table wall and the casino rules require the shooter to strike the wall with at least one of the dice randomizing the outcome. Still I see many players trying to control the dice. The people that are making money with this concept are the "instructors" that sell books, dvds, and even live lessons. I've never asked if these folks were dems or repubs but I'm sure they are at least gullible.

As a poker player I do spend a lot of time in casinos and sometimes I'm drawn to take a chance on the dice table although unlike MOST players I know the odds on every bet and KNOW my exact chance of winning or losing before the dice are ever thrown.

As a person very involved with probabilities and basic math of poker and other games of chance I do not believe in the super natural or life after death etc. However as a human being aware of our mortality, I can understand the desire for the super natural beliefs many cling to.

As far as odd beliefs having real world consequences....they almost always do. Unfortunately the consequences are usually perpetuated against the power less and less fortunate among us.

so I've got a few - magick, divination, energy healing and Reiki. Plus I am interested in UFOs.

Anti-scientific: contradicts proven scientific facts

Unscientific: not proven scientifically and/or not provable/disprovable scientifically

I would not call any of the things you cited "anti-scientific." Some people, who call themselves "scientific" and "reality-based" are actually anti-scientific for believing that their unproven beliefs (such as that all the things you mention are absolutely impossible and that it is established fact that they are impossible) are established scientific fact when they're really only part of a limited unproven worldview.

Just as science has made religion obsolete, we have seen many cases where science has proved to be flat-out wrong and that "old wives tales" or natural remedies are found to be effective.

Fortunately, real scientists recognize that what is "known" now may well found to be wrong later. The scientific method is imperfect and has caused tragic results in the past and will do so again in the future, but it allows for the unknown to become known and accommodates the inevitable expansion of knowledge.

It is only the narrow-minded, the uneducated, and the intellectually challenged that make statements of absolute certitude.

Why feel the need to "confess"?

Science is perfectly fine, but it hasn't caught up to reality yet. That's why we still have scientist working on science.

I don't give s fuck what people think of what I believe. I know things exist that science hasn't been able to prove yet and I don't really care if people believe me or not. And I consider myself fairly liberal.