MovieChat Forums > What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004) Discussion > This movie proves why western education ...

This movie proves why western education corrupts open-mindedness

posted 16 years ago by hoasis
58 replies | jump to latest

I am an atheist, and I have always wanted to prove how ignorant in life people are who are too book-smart. This commentary on IMDB I think says about all there is needed. This was a monumental movie that pushes new ideas, regardless of how valid in "current" scientific thought.

The reality is that all of the people I have met who love this movie and follow some of it's principles are the happiest and most successful financial people I know. Meanwhile, the tenured close-minded science community will forever meddle in their ignorant need to be right and will miss the entire point to this movie and life. They will be the last to admit on how ignorant they really are in the year 2008. Our minds will seem like apes in 200-500 years. So how can they be so right? It's in their emotional makeup and lack of love from their parents... which led to little patience.

On their deathbed, I doubt they will be thinking of how happy they were to dog this movie, instead they will remain the miserable people they are that is easily picked up in their tone from the responses. Get a life people!

Instead of being so negative, try some takt and take the new concepts and seeing how they may be applied to life today. A 100 years from now as we look back, the folks in this WTB community will be a lot further along in enabling human consiousness than someone messing around with a quark who happened to post a negative comment towards this movie and missed the point.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nero-orog 16 years ago

We could also agree that we will not all leave as convinced by the movie as its creators hoped. I, for one, find myself terribly unconvinced by the messages of this movies, as they appeared to me to be based on nothing more than inductive conjecture. "You can change your life if you put your mind to it. Just try it, you'll see!" Unfortunately, that's not how reason works.

I've had close encounters with people who were themselves thoroughly convinced that we, as people, are far too undeveloped to understand these concepts, yet held it in nothing more than good faith and good faith alone that their messages were unequivocally true. But if there's one thing experience has taught me, it's that good faith is only ever good as a guide, never, not at all, as proof. You can take something in good faith, but to accept and believe it in good faith alone is, to me, the height of stupidity.

This movie was sold to me as a movie about quantum physics, yet there was exactly one mention of quantum physics, maybe a few more, but all put together in the basketball court scene. The rest is psychology, theology, spirituality and, most notably, a good deal of metaphysics. And while all of that is good for a discussion on the meaning of life and the nature of existence, it is not, sadly, real science. It's philosophy at most, and philosophy is never convincing and rarely, in fact, even enlightening.

The movie, from where I stand, was directed at those who live mundane, formalistic lives and who have neither the will nor the inclination to spare a thought about what goes on around them. I do not happen to be one such, and the movie bounced in my case. It's simply trying too hard to convince me of something that doesn't really have much of any proof backing it up. No proof other than blind faith, at the very least. Can I prove none of it is true? Nope, not really. But none of it was proven true to begin with. It's just a lot of contemplation material.

It's easy enough to accuse people who disagree with the movie of arrogance and short-sightedness. But people HAVE thought about it, and if my guess is any good, plenty have failed to find it convincing. Being told how the universe works is not very convincing on face value.

[–] Charlie2008 16 years ago

Well, here's my brief input: one of this film's primary messages is that our perception affects the material world, thus, we each can make our own reality. Right (been a while, so I don't fully recall)? Anyway, I believe this movie is ridiculous *beep* Therefore, in my reality, which is shaped by my perception of it, this movie actually is ridiculous *beep* There. Argument averted. We're all right and wrong about this film.

[–] KingOfCollege 16 years ago

I am a happy, open-minded, free-spirited young adult.

And this movie was still a pile of crap.

[–] ShalanTD 15 years ago

some of the happiest people iv ever met are Christian and Mormon and it seems that their religion has a lot to do with that happiness. so i presume even though your an atheist you support their beliefs?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lostfanatic2010 15 years ago

Damn those dogmatic scientists and their contributions to every single aspect of my modern life including modern medical care, the internet, digital technology, and Cheetos. Damn them!

[–] anudeeptoora 15 years ago

Nicely done ..... im gonna print your comment. the original post is just such a useless argument

just becuz i dont agree with the film's BS hence..... im arrogant , just becuz theres no proof backing these claims... im blind , just becuz ( for the sake of argument ) i have a different reality due to my perception ( the movie's claim! )... im negative. whatever

human's belief in a interconnected universe where electrons will guide them to zion ( or basically God ) amazes me. its such a desperate behavior for after life and other heavenly powers.

personally ... i dont get whats wrong with a dead universe that we need to make (in our reality ) electrons conscious by the most ridiculous misinterpretation of the double slit experiment.

Religion and beliefs are like a curse .... u cant criticize them cuz it shows us how arrogant, ignorant and narrow minded we are. its an inescapable BS assumption that portrays our vanity as a species. this guy puts all atheists to shame.

[–] djrosenblatt 13 years ago

I don't think I've ever commented on the quality of another member's comments before, but... Nicely done!

I'm looking forward to reading more from you.

[–] remurmur 15 years ago

Ignorance is bliss.

[–] jsangspar 15 years ago

A spiritual atheist? Man, good luck with that.

----------
"I don't question why I'm here, but I try to think what I can do."
- Takashi Miike

[–] maxloh-1 14 years ago

What is "spiritual"? Some define spiritual as thinking a lot about metaphysics, philosophy, and human consciousness. In this sense I too am somewhat of a spiritual atheist.

http://www.maxloh.com/

[–] MrDefaulto 14 years ago

FACT: There's no such thing as facts. Any REAL scientist knows this. It's simply what has been established according to a current set of rules and methodologies. Just as "facts" from 100 years ago have been dis-proven, so too will the "facts" of today.

Science deals with the billionth of a percent of the universe that we "know".

Religion, Philosophy, Theology, and Spiritualism deals with the other 99+% that we don't know, but try to know.

Another thing, we are not apes, nor did we descend from apes. Apes and humans descended from a like organism and developed differently from that point on. That's why there are apes today, as well as humans, not one descended from the other.

As for Atheism... It's impossible for me to believe that for the billion life forms that exists in a form lower than humans, that there can't be at least one higher being.

That being said... haven't seen the movie! =P

[–] Faustus5 14 years ago

Religion, Philosophy, Theology, and Spiritualism deals with the other 99+% that we don't know, but try to know.

Unfortunately, though religion, theology and spiritualism may claim to attempt to "deal" with the 99+% of the universe don't know, they have a track record that consists of nothing but failure, because they address turf that can only properly be understood through science.

I'll grant that theology is a reputable, objective source when dealing strictly with history or doctrine. I'll also grant that a small subset of what gets called "spiritualism" may deal effectively with personal psychology and well-being, but not because it has anything truthful to tell us about metaphysics. All ontological and explanatory schemes concerning the universe belong to science. The rest is a con.

[–] hbar1915 14 years ago

To MrDefaulto: Did you just make a fact claim that there are no facts??
Any real scientists knows that what he studies are models and approximations. But what he can derive from that are relationships. It is a fact that for a gas temperature is proportional to volume, it is a fact that gravity drops of as 1/r^2 within the Newtonian limit, it is a fact that the sum of the angle of a triangle in euclidean space equals 180 degree, and it is a fact that the integers are a subset of the reals. I think I've made my point.

Religion or more appropriately Philosophical-Theology investigates what westerners defined as spiritualism with the same rigour as Scientists, but they use a different method. They use the intelligble and dialectic method. Note: Those that see Religion as fairy tales or simply for fools should consider that the methods I've just stated led to the development of mathematics and further defined and showed that the Scientific Method works.

Now that that's said and done, this movie is garbage because it twists physics into something it's not and then uses this to help make their beliefs more plausible. It's been said that a lie is most believable when put in between two truths. I say this because I study theoretical physics, I'm almost done my B.Sc. (I'll graduate this summer and then it's on to graduate work). So I have a fairly technical knowledge of QM and it is nothing like this movie presents. It is really interesting and has really far-fetched implications about the world we live in. But it does not make us gods nor does it even imply that.

Prove to me e^ipi = -1 and I will prove to you God.

[–] poeticavarice 14 years ago

I'm astoundingly confused by these posts.

Having seen this film a number of times, I realize that they are offering their points of view, not pushing them as unassailable truth. The movie offers points of view from both sides; scientific and spiritual.

Are there parts of the movie I don't agree with? Of course there are. The title isn't "This Is What We Know!" it's "what DO we know?". There are portions, most notably the water experiment, that have omitted certain details, but it's in the hope that you will do your own homework, not just blindly follow what it says.

In a nutshell, if you're slamming the movie because you don't like what it says, then you're missing what it ACTUALLY says.

[–] Faustus5 14 years ago

Having seen this film a number of times, I realize that they are offering their points of view, not pushing them as unassailable truth. . .In a nutshell, if you're slamming the movie because you don't like what it says, then you're missing what it ACTUALLY says.

Claims about science are not mere opinions, like what political party has the best policy or who is the best 19th century composer. It isn't a matter of "not liking" what the movie says, it is a matter of the people who made the film absolutely lying about what science does and doesn't say, which those of us committed to scientific literacy strongly object to.

As I have pointed out before, if they were honestly just offering one "side" to a genuine debate, then why did they interview a physicist who told them their ideas on quantum physics were flat out wrong--on camera--then cut out that part of the footage and edit it to make it falsely seem as if he was supporting them?

Only someone engaging in propaganda would consider doing such a thing.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bustr-1 9 years ago

why did they interview a physicist who told them their ideas on quantum physics were flat out wrong--on camera--then cut out that part of the footage and edit it to make it falsely seem as if he was supporting them?

really? whats your source? i would like to read about it more.

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

From a Salon article exposing this movie for the cult-promoting propaganda that it is:

David Albert, a professor at the Columbia University physics department, has accused the filmmakers of warping his ideas to fit a spiritual agenda. “I don’t think it’s quite right to say I was ‘tricked’ into appearing,” he said in a statement reposted by a critic on “What the Bleep’s” Internet forum, “but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film … Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.”

“I certainly do not subscribe to the ‘Ramtha School on Enlightenment,’ whatever that is!” he finished. Albert provided Salon with an excerpt from a piece he’s writing on the subject, in which he says, in part, “I’m unwittingly made to sound as if (maybe) I endorse its thesis.”

Here's a link to an interview with him in which they cover the subject:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/1646?in=09:10&out=21:06

[–] Bustr-1 9 years ago

thank you for the link! much obliged!

by the way, the movie also dwells on neuroscience, from what i know, it all seemed to be pretty much accurate (again, not the quantum mechanics part).
you have any idea if that part was also misrepresented?

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

you have any idea if that part was also misrepresented?

Given how much the rest of the science in the movie is a joke, probably. What specific claims were made?

[–] Bustr-1 9 years ago

well, its been a while since i last saw it but if my memory serves they just explained how neurons work, from what i learnd in my psychology major it was pretty much accurate.

the main claim that made me ponder is that neurons make new synaptic pathways, and the more you use certain thinking patterns, the better those synapses function (correct me if im wrong, thats how i learnd neurons work on my neuro-psychology class). based on this, they made a claim that by a certain point a person begins to function automaticlly (which is true, a lot of our behviour is automatic, example: when was the last time you actually thought about what you're doing when opening a door? my guess is that its been a while, because your body just knows what to do without you giving it any conciouess thought), and because of that automatization, our thought process begins to work on "auto-pilot".

im currently studying psychology and this claim was very interesting, since it has some foundation and may explain why people tend to behave a certain way even when this behaviour gives them bad resaults.

just was wondering what are your thoughts about this subject...

[–] Faustus5 9 years ago

the main claim that made me ponder is that neurons make new synaptic pathways, and the more you use certain thinking patterns, the better those synapses function (correct me if im wrong, thats how i learnd neurons work on my neuro-psychology class). based on this, they made a claim that by a certain point a person begins to function automaticlly (which is true, a lot of our behviour is automatic, example: when was the last time you actually thought about what you're doing when opening a door? my guess is that its been a while, because your body just knows what to do without you giving it any conciouess thought), and because of that automatization, our thought process begins to work on "auto-pilot".

I'm more familiar with cognitive neuroscience than quantum physics, and all that sounds perfectly reasonable. I'd be surprised if they didn't go further, though.

[–] Bustr-1 9 years ago

you know what, they may have, but it probably was such *beep* i blocked it out hehe :P

[–] adamsmo 14 years ago

Wrong, bhar.

Science does deal in facts. Scientific theories and hypotheses explain facts - like evolution, or gravity. Evolution and gravity are facts, evolutionary theory and the theory of gravity explain them. You either don't actually have the best comprehension of the scientific method - they do shy away from using words like "facts," but that does not mean it doesn't deal with them. In fact, science MOSTLY deals with facts, but when they attempt to explain them, they are not fact.

It's also false to claim that religion contributed to the development of the scientific method at all. People who assert this can never vocalize just how this allegedly happened. So, because some great scientists/mathematicians in the past have been religious, it's all been because of their religions? Highly doubtful, especially when considering that so often, their religion was at odds with what was found by using the scientific method. It's a nonsensical assertion all around.

[–] dvaLL 14 years ago

Facts deal with history, laws and evidence deal with science. Science tries to disprove itself constantly- but according to you it also takes huge risks designing space stations, space shuttles, and antibiotics...

In order to know the percentage of the universe Science deals with, you'd have to KNOW the percentage of the rest. You can't know what the other percent is... but I do- it's 0% since science prescribed and uses the word Universe.

Humans are apes- not gorillas, not chimpanzees- APES. There's a scientific definition for it. Gorillas are apes too, like salmon is fish. Amazing what looking something up can do?

As for Atheism, it might be the most beautiful existential life-changing self-empowering happiness I have ever come to realize. Freedom from social form or structure is freedom to pursue the truth and understanding of the world around me.

Since you seem hung up on the whole animal vs. human vs. god debate- allow me to mess with your view using the one viable alternative you mentioned- philosophy.

What defines a human being from an animal- at least philosophically within a Christian reality...

Human: Thirst for understanding and knowledge.
Jesus: Born with that thirst quenched.

Human: Faces ambiguity and judgement at death.
Jesus: Is exempt from judgement for he is the judge.

Human: Purpose must be found and discovered and is a mystery- may live and die without understanding God's intentions. Thus, the human is constantly struggling to identify pursuits of God's purpose vs. earthly purpose.
Jesus: Purpose is absolutely realized and absolutely impossible to deviate. Jesus as God abides by Christian doctrine as the originator and fulfills even the strictest forms of existentialism without any binding outside contract.

Human: Restricted to the physical realities of the world. (exception Faith.)
Jesus: Able to control and change earthly properties and interfere and control functions of the spirit realm. (Through Faith?)

Human: Requires Faith for redemption and eternal life- thereby indicating a world of ambiguity through lack of evidence so that faith may be required.
Jesus: Exempt from the struggle for faith because merely being self-aware is automatic absolute faith.

Exemption from these realities of knowledge and purpose leaves a being in the realm of the animal -OR- of Godliness. Jesus is not human. Since Jesus has the ability to converse through language, understand abstract concepts and complex functions, Jesus by default is therefore a god. Since gods are exempt from death- a sacrifice NEVER TOOK PLACE.

[–] bowringjb 14 years ago

Ha ha ha, mr, you so craaazy.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] charlie_221 14 years ago

What is wrong with smoking weed, it just brings out this very creative side in people. Allot of life's answers come from such crazy questions. As for the "are we fruitloops and the world is a bowl of milk" question, you could draw a parallel to are we a tiny thing part of a giant thing, no we are not fruitloops, we are humans and we aren't in a bowl of milk, we are on a teeny tiny round planet in orbit around a tiny star floating somewhere in the universe.

What they try to conclude from God is that throughout history, the clergy has modified the meaning of god. How, well first: the movie tries to explain that God is the ensemble of you and the universe and that we may be his eyes, and he may constitute life. Now, the clergy modified the meaning of God by making him a bearded man that sits somewhere on a cloud looking down upon us and shunning every thing we do if it doesn't go according to his best-seller, and making people become robots by making them assist to their event every week, maybe a bit like the way you sleep in every week-end. In any case, nobody knows what God is, if such a bearded man exists, science can't "prove" it either.

What they try to explain about science, is that they it has become this very dogmatic, close-minded form of thinking. Science shuns the idea of magic, spirituality and anything OTHER than concrete things. And if you really think about it, science has only been able to prove things that have happened numerous times before.

Basically, the movie says to look at things positively, to not let the past influence our perception of the present and the future, a bit like Jesus would say, to open your heart to love and you will, in the end, reflect that love upon others.

I'm open to an answer from you or anyone else, just as long as you aren't agressive, close-minded or insult my way of thinking.

Take the money and Go Johny Go

[–] Faustus5 14 years ago

Science shuns the idea of magic, spirituality and anything OTHER than concrete things.

That's because there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any truth to magic and "spirituality".

[–] charlie_221 14 years ago

And science has only been able to proove things that have happened over and over. What if tomorow gravety didn't exist...then science would have been wrong..

Take the money and Go Johny Go

[–] smeth 14 years ago

So... you don't believe in gravity?

[–] charlie_221 14 years ago

@ smeth Let's just say I stay sceptic to it.

Take the money and Go Johny Go

[–] smeth 14 years ago

"And science has only been able to proove things that have happened over and over. What if tomorow gravety didn't exist...then science would have been wrong..
"

Gravity is something that has happened over and over for many, many years. If I have a pencil in my hand and let it go, I can predict what will happen. Didn't science prove gravity?

But, what if tomorrow gravity didn't exist. 1) Did it ever exist, but it just stopped? 2) did it NEVER exist? 3) Did some other force exist that looked and acted the same way as gravity, but we won't use the word "gravity"?

[–] maxloh-1 14 years ago

You're either really delusional (suck at logic) or horrible at expressing your thoughts accurately in words (suck in English)

http://www.maxloh.com/

[–] movie_nazi 12 years ago

@ smeth Let's just say I stay sceptic to it.

Skeptic to what? There is no denying that there is a force that keeps us planted to the planet. This is what we currently label as "gravity" . It can be measured and predicted. Science admits that it does not know what causes gravity so it's not like they have a concrete definition as to what it is only how it behaves. There is no denying that it exists just as you cannot deny that light exists.

[–] Faustus5 14 years ago

Yes, reality has patterns which we discover and call scientific laws. Since magic does not exist, it leaves no trace in reality.

[–] movie_nazi 12 years ago

As for Atheism... It's impossible for me to believe that for the billion life forms that exists in a form lower than humans, that there can't be at least one higher being.

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Are we then "gods" because we are "higher" than the other animals on Earth? Atheism simply denounces the reality of an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful being not the existence of "higher" beings than humans.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (22634583) 9 years ago

Oh really? So 2+2 doesn't equal 4? That's not a fact?

[–] kosk11348 9 years ago

Another thing, we are not apes, nor did we descend from apes. Apes and humans descended from a like organism and developed differently from that point on. That's why there are apes today, as well as humans, not one descended from the other.

You have this garbled. Humans are most definitely apes. It's humans and monkeys which share a common ancestor.

Orgies are not too much fun if no one wants to do it with you.