VincentRJ

But you've already stated: "Did Yingluck deserve the turmoil? Of course she did, her government was corrupt and inept." That implies that there could be a lack of confidence that the Yingluck government would have gone the 'correct way'.

And what happens if the turmoil is beyond the capabilities of the police to control. Does the military wait until there are thousands of deaths of both police and civilians before they take action? Is it not better to prevent those deaths by taking control before they happen?

You seem confused. The military is not a cause. It's an organization funded by the people, through their taxes, and exists in order to protect the society from disruptive intruders. The military was just doing its job when it took over control. Would you prefer a situation like what happened recently at Capitol Hill in Washington?

It's very different. Those protesters of Yingluck's government were fueling continual political unrest which could have escalated into complete chaos if the military had not intervened to take control. The military didn't intervene because they disagreed with Yingluck's policies and/or because they became aware of signs of corruption in the government. They intervened in order to create stability. It is those protesters who were the cause of the military coup.

As I understand, one can have only one wife by Thai Law. You cannot legally be married to two women as this article implies.

Thanks for the link to the PDF, Peter. My first impressions are that Rupert Sheldrake is very biased, as are most of us, and in fact all of us, at least to some degree. The scientific methodology attempts to overcome this bias, although I doubt it can completely eliminate it because all scientist are human beings, most with families to support, and/or ambitions to become famous and win a Nobel prize, or gain wealth or admiration from their colleagues, and so on. In the preface to his book, Sheldrake mentions his academic background in Biology and Biochemistry. There is no mention o

The answer is both 'yes' and 'no', depending on the definition of 'science'. According to my understanding (and I'm always willing to be corrected), 'science' is process of enquiry based upon observations and evidence, which result in explanations or hypotheses which have to be confirmed through a methodology of repeated experimentation and genuine attempts at falsification, using our imagination to create scenarios that could show the hypothesis is wrong, if it is in fact wrong. If such repeated experimentation produces consistent results, and all attempts at falsification have fa

I agree. Good point! However, I am disappointed the article did not mention what the 4 best countries are for cultural heritage. Anyone Know?

One should not confuse skepticism with denialism. Within the field of scientific inquiry, skepticism doesn't deny the existence of that which cannot be scientifically proven. Skepticism is a process of questioning theories or explanations that don't meet the rigorous standards of the 'methodology of science', and as a result of such questioning skepticism can reveal the flaws and uncertainties in a particular theory which then requires amendment or modification, or even total scrapping. Without skepticism, science could not progress. "Scientific skepticism advocates for testing bel

In my view a 'spiritual signal' is an emotional experience or 'state of awareness' that results from a general lack of signals. The usual 'state of mind' of the average person is like a busy city continuously bustling with numerous activities. The mind is usually full of continuous thoughts about numerous issues and concerns, some of which cause worry and anxiety, and some of which cause laughter and pleasure. It should not be difficult to imagine that a 'still' state-of-mind, free of all thoughts, worries and pleasures, could result in a very calm and peaceful experience, and

Of course the direct, unadulterated, inner knowledge consists of patterns of neurons in the brain and the activity of those neurons, as do all experiences and sensations of all types, including all scientific knowledge. The communication of such inner knowledge to others takes place all the time, but has to go through a conversion process, just like a radio or TV signal has to go through a conversion process in the radio or TV set before the message is communicated to the listener. In order to transfer the inner knowledge directly, without conversion, one would have to

In my view, what you've quoted is an opinion that defies common sense and logic. I've selected the parts of your quote which emphasize this illogicality, for the reasons I'll explain. The arts, literature, music, and so on, are creations from inner knowledge. That inner knowledge is transmitted or transferred via novels, paintings, musical compositions, playwrights, actors, and so on. Beethoven was able to continue writing music even after he became deaf, and that inner experience was communicated to an audience who could hear. "To believe is not to know. Not even calcu

I don't think it's reasonable to imply that Neuroscientists are children. Also, the true 'Methodology of Science' requires that any evidence that might be relevant to the inquiry should not be dismissed. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of the existence of mental activity which is independent of electrical impulses. In fact, I would suggest that imagining one can have thoughts that are not dependent upon electrical impulses in the brain, is a much better example of childishness.

If I missed your point, it was because you didn't express yourself clearly enough. I was addressing your point that 'any belief will do'... to satisfy a practical need. I don't disagree that everyone needs some kind of belief, but there is a major distinction to be made between beliefs that successfully satisfy a practical need and those that fail to satisfy a practical need. Beliefs that satisfy a practical need tend to result in security, happiness, peace of mind, and relative freedom from suffering, whereas beliefs that fail tend to result in misery, poverty, continual conflic

If 'belief' satisfies a practical need, then I don't think 'any kind of belief' will do. Surely the belief has to be tailored to suit particular problems. For example, in the case of Climate Change Alarmism due to CO2 emissions, there are important problems that are addressed, regardless of the truth of whether or not CO2 emissions are bad. These problems include the real pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels which can, and do, create awful smog in certain areas which results in serious health problems; the environmental destruction from the mining of coal and oil and the fracking of gas