ant wrote:Maybe Interbane would say it stands to reason that we should be able to locate inspiration in the brain and remove it for further analysis.

Many things like inspiration are emergent phenomenon as complex as the weather. We may be able to roughly gauge what is inspiring to another, and study a few of the neurons in detail. But it's currently complex beyond our ability to examine. Most of the answer is necessarily philosophical or even artistic, since inspiration is a mostly subjective thing.

ant wrote:And the scientific explanation would be "because that's what mostly happens. The science of medicine assists health, but does not assure it or its well being"
Maybe?

As DWill said, our bodies heal naturally.

ant wrote: 75% of people will get better anyway??

And the scientific explanation would be "because that's what mostly happens. The science of medicine assists health, but does not assure it or its well being"
Maybe?

No doubt we have come a long way. But is there a tendency to overrate our understanding?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, ant, and I wasn't arguing anything beyond ill-health mostly resolving itself without any treatment (other than applying common sense). Do I need a study to back me up on that?

We don't live our lives through science, anyway. It's just a tool in the toolbox.

Sagan touches on the placebo effect a bit in this chapter.
Although he does not provide scientific reasons for it, his talking point is understood and now approaching total redundancy.

Sagan is free to opine as much as anyone, but when you totally mischaracterize an issue and blow its context completely to hell (as Sagan does with the historical details of Mesmerism) i know the author is either intentionally duping his readers, or isnt sophisticated enough to be opening the topic up for discussion.
Sagan is both.

i know the author is either intentionally duping his readers, or isnt sophisticated enough to be opening the topic up for discussion.
Sagan is both.

are you saying that CS is intentionally duping his readers AND not sophisticated enough to discuss these matters?

this reminds me of when Stahrwe called Joe Campbell a hack.

Page 241 Carl Sagan :
"But what worries me is that a Carlos will come along with bigger fish to fry-attractive, commanding, patriotic, exuding leadership. All of us long for a competent, uncorrupt, charismatic leader. We will leap at the opportunity to support, to believe, to feel good. Most reporters, editors, and producers-swept up with the rest of us- will shy away from real skeptical scrutiny. He won't be selling you prayers or crystals or tears. Perhaps he'll be selling you a war, or a scapegoat, or a much more all-encompassing bundle of beliefs than Carlos's. Whatever it is, it will be accompanied by warnings about the dangers of skepticism."

Here, With this quote is the root fear CS is warning against, Charlatans with bombs.
Read the quote and think carefully of events since 911, seems prophetic doesn't it? Don't just picture in your minds eye the other side in possession of WMD's, Think of your side as well.

same page Carl Sagan :
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject evidence of the bamboozle, We're no longer interested in finding the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. Its simply to painful to acknowledge, even to our selves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new ones rise"

Again read the quote, and think in terms of global politics, CS's prophetic subversion, or am I totally out of context?

Read the quote and think carefully of events since 911, seems prophetic doesn't it

Sagan's warning about the selling of war (by some group) by advocating the "dangers of skepticism" is not entirely accurate for all radical terrorist orgs.

Al Qaeda's propaganda machine is based mostly on political grievances (occupied territories, puppet regimes, etc) and the imposing of western values, most of which Islamic culture simply does not share (capitalism, consumerism, materlalism, certain forms of "entertainment).

There are other organizations that protest the imposing of western values. This past valentines day there were scattered protests that objected to the capitalist nature of the day. Quite frankly, V-day is a day of legal robbery, in my opinion.
The price of tokens of affection are doubled - literally DOUBLED. So are dinner prices. All because of an expectation created by a voracious capitalistic machine influencing the herd.

I heard on some local radio station that claimed a recent poll indicated 53 percent of women said they would "break up" with their partner if he didn't do something for them on V-day.
If that's true (who was being asked, how many, etc. etc) it's truly, in my opinion a horrific indicator.
One of these days I might protest "love capitalism" myself.

Anyway..,

Al Qaeda's intention at the start was not, from what I understand so far, the global dissemination of sharia law.
The last model of the coursera course on Terrorism deals strictly with an analysis of Al Qaeda. I'm looking forward to it.

Since 911, splinter groups have emerged from A.Q. with their own priorities.

Interestingly enough, the magazine associated with AQ, "Inspire" was not endorsed by Osama Bin Laden. Actually, he rejected it as part of AQ's "brand" and did not want it to represent AQ. Since the death of OBL and the authors of Inspire that started it, my understanding is that it continues to circulate to this day.

I better example of a "war on skepticism/critical thought" and autonomy might be the terrorist organization Boko Haram which translates to "Western Education is Forbidden"

Boko Harem's primary targets at the start of their splinter campaign were educational institutions.

(side note: no, I am not saying sharia law or fundamental religious governments are better than democracy).

Ant :
Sagan's warning about the selling of war (by some group) by advocating the "dangers of skepticism" is not entirely accurate for all radical terrorist orgs

You make a good point here, my knowledge of bin laden and his associated groups comes largely from the 911 commission report. When I said to think carefully of events since 911, I was suggesting, to consider what was the group in the NCR, including our allies. For the most part I have been in agreement with you when it comes to jihadi motivations. For what this may be worth, I have friends who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they tell me that religion is not the primary motivator of the people their up against, western powers there are perceived as occupiers. More specifically toward Carl Sagan's quote, he was warning us, that is, you and I and anyone else, that we need to pay close attention to our own leaders.

Something to add to my previous post; these leaders of ours will warn we the people against being overly skeptical toward our leaders, elected and unelected. Political slight of hand. as the saying goes "trust me, I'm from the gov't, I'm here to help you "

Ant;
Al Qaeda's intention at the start was not, from what I understand so far, the global dissemination of sharia law.

Your understanding here is correct, bin laden was pissed at western military presence and diplomatic influence in the middle east, particularly in Saudi Arabia. bin laden was Saudi by birth. He had serious resentments partly from Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

From the 911 commission report;
IN February 1998, the 40 year old Saudi exile usama bin ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician ayman al zarwahiri, arranged from their afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of what they called a"World Islamic Front". A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither bin ladin, zarahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against god and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it".
Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, bin ladin enlarged on these themes. He claimed it was more important for muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels. " it is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities", Asked if he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied " We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorist are the Americans, Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets."
Though novel for its open endorsement of indiscriminate killing, bin ladin's 1998 declaration was only the latest in the long series of his public and private calls since 1992 that singled out the United States for attack.

I think your coursera would be remiss if they do not at least enter into some acknowledgement of the commission report. I find it to be useful as a reference, it reads like a thriller.

The final module will focus on AQ..,

"To conclude, module five will bring the varied course concepts together through a detailed look at the case of al-Qa'ida, including the group's successes, failures, tactics, and strategies."

Much of the information I imagine will be drawn from START research and from social/psychological models referenced from previous lectures.

should be a very interesting case study.