Atheists and their jargon of insults

[cladking]

But over time, bad science will out … eventually. That is simply the reality of the process. Unfortunately, there is no better alternative, no other foolproof way to conduct such inquiry.

And I'm telling you there are alternatives. Simply embracing our own ignorance would go a very long way to reducing most problems. Small changes in language and education can be made. The study of consciousness might provide huge returns. Ancient and modern science could probably be done in tandem.

Bad science wasn't a problem before Darwin. But now science is used as a weapon against the proletariat. Bad science can kill millions and waste vast resources. How much damage has already been done by planned obsolescence? This one boondoggle alone wastes half our resources and creates half our CO2. It's sole purpose is to damage the proletariat so the rich get even richer.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is most of these problems are impossible to mitigate without understanding consciousness. The greatest problem, the one that creates most believers in science is "That theory can be extrapolated and reality interpolated.". It is never legitimate to extrapolate theory in any way whatsoever however most of the time such extrapolations are not so far afield. Indeed, they are usually close enough to even allow calculation and prediction. The real problem comes from the nature of the human mind to interpolate; to color in what isn't known by what is known. We thereby think we know everything and don't even notice we can't calculate, can't predict, and can't communicate. Seeing what you believe is mysticism and most believers in science are exactly no less mystical than anyone else.

Until we learn the nature of consciousness we will have all these problems. I found the nature of consciousness by coming to understand the nature of the consciousness of ancient people. By this means I am able to see these problems. Mitigating them is easily done but nobody is going to take my word for it and call me names and gainsay me even if I say the sky is blue. They don't want to believe so they are blind to every fact I present. Among the insults they ignore what I say, every definition, and every single fact and experiment. They can't see my points because they believe something very different. They've colored in their reality with experiment and fact that does not apply but seems relevant.

If you say the sky is blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July I will believe you, but I prefer Carolina Blue sky.

The above confirms your arrogance to have esoteric knowledge beyond the science of Methodological NAturalism and the objectively verifiable evidence that has supported science for over 200 years at least.

You not only lack the basic knowledge of science and math, but I will bull manure plow to deal with your posts in the future,

 

[shunyadragon]

And I'm telling you there are alternatives. Simply embracing our own ignorance would go a very long way to reducing most problems. Small changes in language and education can be made. The study of consciousness might provide huge returns. Ancient and modern science could probably be done in tandem.

Bad science wasn't a problem before Darwin. But now science is used as a weapon against the proletariat. Bad science can kill millions and waste vast resources. How much damage has already been done by planned obsolescence? This one boondoggle alone wastes half our resources and creates half our CO2. It's sole purpose is to damage the proletariat so the rich get even richer.

You are embracing the intentional ignorance of science before Darwin, Einstein and all science since.

I have to unload bull manure plow and return for the next post,

 

[cladking]

Always boils down to Egyptian pyramids with you.

Not really. I was a crackpot long before I found how the pyramids were built.

But pyramids are key. Ancient knowledge lies right under the NE corner of G1 and I believe we may well go extinct without it. Indeed , the mechanism of our extinct could be so similar I call it "Tower of Babel 2.0"

The first time science was lost because its metaphysics became too complex to be understood by enough people to operate the state and economy and this time science can be lost because it will become too specialized to be understood by enough people to operate the state and economy. At Tower of Babel 1.0 they had ancient technology (agriculture) to sustain them until modern science was invented. This time I don't think we can keep the machines running and we are in grave danger of becoming extinct. Most people would be surprised to find out that nobody in many factories knows how the factory operates. Not one individual! Any disruption in the entire system could easily become permanent.


Reality is infinitely more complex than is apparent. All things affect all things in real time and forever even after they no longer exist. So long as so many people believe they have all the answers and want to preach to heretics there will be a problem. The insults aren't the problem but the omniscience is.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I'm telling you there are alternatives. Simply embracing our own ignorance would go a very long way to reducing most problems. Small changes in language and education can be made. The study of consciousness might provide huge returns. Ancient and modern science could probably be done in tandem.

Bad science wasn't a problem before Darwin. But now science is used as a weapon against the proletariat. Bad science can kill millions and waste vast resources. How much damage has already been done by planned obsolescence? This one boondoggle alone wastes half our resources and creates half our CO2. It's sole purpose is to damage the proletariat so the rich get even richer.

You are embracing the intentional ignorance of science before Darwin, Einstein and rejecting all science since.

I have to unload bull manure plow and return for the next post,

Not really. I was a crackpot long before I found how the pyramids were built.

Blue smoke, mirrors and levatation?

But pyramids are key. Ancient knowledge lies right under the NE corner of G1 and I believe we may well go extinct without it. Indeed , the mechanism of our extinct could be so similar I call it "Tower of Babel 2.0"

I call it intentional ignorance and mythology 1.0

The first time science was lost because its metaphysics became too complex to be understood by enough people to operate the state and economy and this time science can be lost because it will become too specialized to be understood by enough people to operate the state and economy. At Tower of Babel 1.0 they had ancient technology (agriculture) to sustain them until modern science was invented. This time I don't think we can keep the machines running and we are in grave danger of becoming extinct. Most people would be surprised to find out that nobody in many factories knows how the factory operates. Not one individual! Any disruption in the entire system could easily become permanent.


Reality is infinitely more complex than is apparent. All things affect all things in real time and forever even after they no longer exist. So long as so many people believe they have all the answers and want to preach to heretics there will be a problem. The insults aren't the problem but the omniscience is.

Nobody has all the answers, except maybe you claiming to know everything. Your humility is only exceeded by your claim of esoteric knowledge of everything,

 

[cladking]

This is exactly the kind of problem that a scientific approach acknowledges and makes conscious effort to mitigate.

No. Sorry, it doesn't work this way. No conscious effort will prevent someone from reasoning back to his assumptions. Certainly some people might be a little better than others but if after you have come to a conclusion you still hold the same beliefs as when you started then you DID already engage circular reasoning.

Science doesn't work because of genius, scientists, Peers, peers, or a scientific perspective. It works only because experiment causes conclusions to go tangentially to assumption. Those who think experiment isn't science and that "evidence" or "Peers" are important don't really understand science. Experiment matters and not the careers of those whose death will improve science. This might sound harsh but it is the reality for our species and it will be the reality until we understand consciousness and even beyond.

 

[cladking]

I want to address this item on your list specifically. The label ‘God’ is utterly meaningless from a scientific perspective and therefore no assumptions or speculations are even possible. Those that use this term, from all my experience with its use, require significant assumptions with no possible scientific foundation. That seems to be the crux of the problem for those who are dissatisfied with the sciences. Is this the source of your frustration with science as well?

Obviously every scientist doesn't believe there is no God but an awful lot do. Even those who claim to believe there might be a God don't really 8include such an idea in their thinking.

 

[cladking]

The above confirms your arrogance to have esoteric knowledge beyond the science of Methodological NAturalism and the objectively verifiable evidence that has supported science for over 200 years at least.

You are simply assuming that reason and evidence can't lead to understanding outside experiment. You are assuming that correct prediction doesn't have characteristics of experiment. You are assuming that if you don't know something then I can't either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Obviously every scientist doesn't believe there is no God but an awful lot do. Even those who claim to believe there might be a God don't really 8include such an idea in their thinking.

Because science is based on verifiable evidence, not wishfull thinking.

 

[cladking]

Blue smoke, mirrors and levatation?

Linear funiculars.

Nobody has all the answers, except maybe you claim to. Your humility is only exceeded by your claim of esoteric knowledge of everything,

I don't have any answers. Science doesn't find answers, it finds questions.

I merely found the framework of reality and life. It will take centuries to fill in the pictures.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are simply assuming that reason and evidence can't lead to understanding outside experiment.

No I do not make that assumption. You make the assumption that experiment cannot lead to the knowledge of science.

You are assuming that correct prediction doesn't have characteristics of experiment. You are assuming that if you don't know something then I can't either.

Not making any of these assumptions as worded.

 

[shunyadragon]

Linear funiculars.

. . . but accurate of the validity of your claims.

I don't have any answers. Science doesn't find answers, it finds questions.

I merely found the framework of reality and life. It will take centuries to fill in the pictures.

. . . which reflects your arrogance to know all things.

The bull manure plow is full. I will be back.

 

[cladking]

. . . which reflects your arrogance to know all things.

Apropos of nothing in particular if an ancient saw modern technology he might think it was magic but if we saw ancient metaphysical language we'd think it was some sort of magic.

There is no magic in the world except in a young girl's eyes, a sunset, life, understanding, and creation. Well... ...let's not forget the magic of the way reality unfolds to reflect everything that exists or has ever existed.

There is nothing except magic in the world.

Deal with it!

 

[cladking]

There is nothing except magic in the world.

...And every member of the species homo omnisciencis thinks he knows everything. Now that's magic. Imagine the courage it takes to insult people for not having your beliefs! Imagine explaining to your maker how you belittled everyone who didn't agree with you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Obviously every scientist doesn't believe there is no God but an awful lot do. Even those who claim to believe there might be a God don't really 8include such an idea in their thinking.

Yes, there are scientist that believe in God and those that do not. This is the nature of the science of Methodological Naturalism. It is neutral to beliefs and claims of religion that cannot be falsified by objective verifiable evidence. I serious reputable scientific journals you will not see references 'God' thinking or other beliefs in spiritual beings and worlds.

 

[shunyadragon]

Apropos of nothing in particular if an ancient saw modern technology he might think it was magic but if we saw ancient metaphysical language we'd think it was some sort of magic.

There is no magic in the world except in a young girl's eyes, a sunset, life, understanding, and creation. Well... ...let's not forget the magic of the way reality unfolds to reflect everything that exists or has ever existed.

There is nothing except magic in the world.

Deal with it!

Contact Harry Potter he may help you out, or maybe "Dr." Russell Humphreys he believes in science before Darwin.

 

[MikeF]

Bad science wasn't a problem before Darwin. But now science is used as a weapon against the proletariat. Bad science can kill millions and waste vast resources. How much damage has already been done by planned obsolescence? This one boondoggle alone wastes half our resources and creates half our CO2. It's sole purpose is to damage the proletariat so the rich get even richer.

This is great. This is telling. Clearly it appears, for you, the problem with science is it's success. In your view, continued scientific improvement in our understanding is a bad thing. Bad because, in your mind, it means ever greater ability to kill millions, waste vast resources, demands greater energy use and therefore more CO2 released into the atmosphere.

I will agree with you that those are all real problems. What I would disagree with is the idea that it is the sole result of our improved scientific understanding of the world. I would suggest instead that the primary cause of the problems you describe is our ever increasing population. Killing millions, wasting resources, damaging ecosystems has been occurring for thousands of years. The only difference is that the further back one goes, the smaller the overall global population and thus the proportionately smaller impact.

Here is an example:

"The first humans arrived in Australia about 50,000 years ago. Miller said that more than 85 percent of Australia’s mammals – birds and reptiles weighing over 100 pounds – went extinct a few thousand years after the first humans arrived." LINK​

Think about that. Eighty five percent of animals above 100 lbs driven to extinction simply by the introduction of Homo Sapiens to the continent of Australia. This impact was not the result of "bad science" but purely the result of human nature.

I also find it interesting that you don't consider science to have been a problem, or "bad", until Darwin dropped his bombshell of a theory on a overwhelmingly dominant religious world. I can only imagine that an inability to reconcile the Theory of Evolution (as revised and currently understood) is the cause for this attitude.

In the end, I think your animosity toward science is misplaced. Human behavior and ever increasing population would be better candidates for your ire. I see have a better understanding of the world and ourselves only helping, not hurting our chances at solving these issues.

And I'm telling you there are alternatives. Simply embracing our own ignorance would go a very long way to reducing most problems. Small changes in language and education can be made. The study of consciousness might provide huge returns. Ancient and modern science could probably be done in tandem.

Does embracing our ignorance mean we should acknowledge how much we do not know about the world? I would argue the scientific community has a healthy understanding of the limits of our understanding. I certainly do not see preserving ignorance as the solution, rather, a better understanding of why we behave the way we do and developing strategies to manage that would be a more productive option, in my opinion.

I get that you feel your concepts of consciousness and Ancient science are viable avenues to address these issues, but I personally do not see them as actual and workable concepts and I think you are going to struggle to find adequate buy-in to make an impact.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I'm telling you there are alternatives. Simply embracing our own ignorance would go a very long way to reducing most problems. Small changes in language and education can be made. The study of consciousness might provide huge returns. Ancient and modern science could probably be done in tandem.

Bad science wasn't a problem before Darwin. But now science is used as a weapon against the proletariat. Bad science can kill millions and waste vast resources. How much damage has already been done by planned obsolescence? This one boondoggle alone wastes half our resources and creates half our CO2. It's sole purpose is to damage the proletariat so the rich get even richer.

Bad science of coal and steel negan the industrial Revolution came about by old science before Darwin, and began global warming from increased CO2, Actually science and technology reduced the consumption per/capita. The increase in CO2 is dominantly old pre Darwin technology since.

 

[MikeF]

Not really. I was a crackpot long before I found how the pyramids were built.

But pyramids are key. Ancient knowledge lies right under the NE corner of G1 and I believe we may well go extinct without it. Indeed , the mechanism of our extinct could be so similar I call it "Tower of Babel 2.0"

The first time science was lost because its metaphysics became too complex to be understood by enough people to operate the state and economy and this time science can be lost because it will become too specialized to be understood by enough people to operate the state and economy. At Tower of Babel 1.0 they had ancient technology (agriculture) to sustain them until modern science was invented. This time I don't think we can keep the machines running and we are in grave danger of becoming extinct. Most people would be surprised to find out that nobody in many factories knows how the factory operates. Not one individual! Any disruption in the entire system could easily become permanent.


Reality is infinitely more complex than is apparent. All things affect all things in real time and forever even after they no longer exist. So long as so many people believe they have all the answers and want to preach to heretics there will be a problem. The insults aren't the problem but the omniscience is.

I get what you are saying in terms of the complexity of modern society and therefore individuals are really only able to have a relatively narrowed focus understanding of a small part of the complex whole, but I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I see this complex system as especially vulnerable.

I also do not see extinction looming over the horizon. Whatever may be in store for us in the foreseeable future, however bad it gets, it won't be to the point of extinction.

What would be your religious take on extinction? Does your belief system consist of an afterlife? If it does, does extinction really matter? Just curious how that might work.

 

[MikeF]

No. Sorry, it doesn't work this way. No conscious effort will prevent someone from reasoning back to his assumptions. Certainly some people might be a little better than others but if after you have come to a conclusion you still hold the same beliefs as when you started then you DID already engage circular reasoning.

Science doesn't work because of genius, scientists, Peers, peers, or a scientific perspective. It works only because experiment causes conclusions to go tangentially to assumption. Those who think experiment isn't science and that "evidence" or "Peers" are important don't really understand science. Experiment matters and not the careers of those whose death will improve science. This might sound harsh but it is the reality for our species and it will be the reality until we understand consciousness and even beyond.

Again, you often have little nuggets of truth or legitimate complaint hidden amongst the rest of your arcane ideas. Yes there are legitimate concerns with the peer review system. Journal Publication, influence of money on research, etc. Fortunately, any errors introduced from these issues eventually get resolved over time as the errors get revealed through continuous work in the subject field of study. That is the beauty of the scientific model of inquiry, it has built-in self-correcting mechanisms.

But it is becoming clear to me that you know and appreciate that scientific inquiry works. I just don't understand why you perseverate over problems that are already anticipated. It is understood and accepted that human investigators are not perfect.

While your complaints may be valid to a degree, they are certainly not damning or fatal to science.