The Extension of Science Beyond Its Scope

[Madsaac]

I wouldn't say that Western or any other governments make their decisions solely based on social and scientific studies.

No they don't and shouldn’t but maybe they should do it more.

There is certainly some validity in the thoughts of your OP and the notion that 'experts' are trying to express opinions with authority or credibility in unrelated fields. So, because of this, does this mean that science studies have even more importance because they often leave less room for interpretation and opinion and so it's harder to express opinions in unrelated fields.

This room for interpretation and opinion may be a big reason certain political groups are becoming more powerful. They can spin a good yarn. A classic, a tried and true approach from these groups is on immigration. If we were to respect the factual studies done in this area, it may make their message different.

Everyone has an opinion and think they know it all. Let’s stick to the facts

So an acknowledged, well founded science study should be used more often and held with more esteem within society.

 

[Valjean]

What about a priest?

A moral priest?
I'd expect a priest to navigate by the deontological 'rules' of his religion. What need would he have to develop a personal, internalized morality?

 

[Valjean]

---

Sometimes expertise isn't required when stating something that is obvious and self explanatory.

Isn't human intellectual progress replete with 'obvious' facts later found to be not so obvious?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Isn't human intellectual progress replete with 'obvious' facts later found to be not so obvious?

Maybe but not all.

 

[Madsaac]

A moral priest?
I'd expect a priest to navigate by the deontological 'rules' of his religion. What need would he have to develop a personal, internalized morality?

Yes but does this mean they lose their importance if they’re not considered experts in ethics an morality

 

[Valjean]

Yes but does this mean they lose their importance if they’re not considered experts in ethics an morality

Their Importance might be an interesting topic for discussion. What exactly is their function, in your opinion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

---

Sometimes expertise isn't required when stating something that is obvious and self explanatory.

Well, maybe for facts as they are in practice objective, but not so for morality and ethics, as there are as far as I can not objective, but rather relative and thus not obvious and self explanatory.

 

[Valjean]

Individual scientists may have their opinions and biases about many things, but promoting them as "science" is problematic, given the fundamental methodology of the discipline, with it's dependence on observation, research, testing, peer reviews, &c. Any claims have to be pretty robust to have navigated science's obstacle course.
Attempting to promote an idea beyond the scope of science is like trying to sail to Kansas. Science doesn't have the equipment for it.

 

[Madsaac]

Their Importance might be an interesting topic for discussion. What exactly is their function, in your opinion?

Well that's a good question?

Do priest go beyond their their function and scope? Yes and it's probably easier for 'experts' like priests to do this, especially when they base their beliefs on subjective opinion and metaphysics

Whilst science has an objective take on the world, sort by rigorous methodological approaches.

 

[PureX]

---

Sometimes expertise isn't required when stating something that is obvious and self explanatory.

Except there is really very little that is simple about science, philosophy, religion, or politics.

 

[LadyJane]

I found the essay overall thought-provoking.

I did as well.

I thought about when it was written, where he was in his life when he wrote it, considered the gentlemen you mentioned and what people seem to do when they admire an author or philosopher or scientist. They latch on. Not always but often. And if someone criticises their favourite author or philosopher or scientist it’s as though they are criticising them personally. You don’t like a certain book or particular theory? Is that met with a reasonable response? Only if they’ve detached themselves enough to understand it’s not their book or theory. They didn’t themselves write it or think it. Yet anything but a compliment is like kicking them in the junk.

Richard Dawkins has my respect as an evolutionary biologist. The Ancestor’s Tale is a gem. The fact that he went out on a limb as an outspoken atheist kicked down the door for folks like Sam Harris. Without The God Delusion there’d be no End of Faith. Rarely do I agree with everyone or every book by every author. Steven Pinker seems to cherry pick information so he can give everyone rose tinted glasses while he tells them exactly what they want to hear. It’s all very nice but highly suspicious. Still, I would take that gladly over listening to anything Jordan Peterson has to say about anything. Ptew!

The unfortunate thing about some of these lads is that they left neuroscience or psychology or snake oil sales for full time podcasting to whine about cancel culture. That...is a drag. We need to care less about them personally and focus on the work and they have to not care if we like them personally. I think it is up to each of us, as an individual, to remember these people are human. Humans make mistakes. But are equally entitled to hold views about any subject they please. Opinions outside one’s expertise must be measured and evaluated in a way that hero worship doesn’t end up turning it into gospel.

In the hasty all or nothing condemnatory vs. admiration match up scenario audiences demand we relinquish the responsibility of separating these things and teasing out the relevant bits while handing over our own opinions and preferences to these so called authorities. Creating an aggressive feedback and defensive behavioural dynamic. Leaving exposed an emotional investment lacking the discipline you can detect straight away. You see it throughout the pages of these threads all the time. In the diatribes of a blowhard, the flailing knees of ruffled feathers or the misguided following of fiends.

I think it’s great to be well rounded and gather knowledge from as many sources in as many areas as possible. Should an author be responsible for what happens after they render their writing? The audience can take it or leave it. We can take it or leave it. We can agree with some things and not others. All without hating each other. I don’t think love and hate have to come into the picture any more than right or wrong. The internet while enticing people into the same dark holes can eventually lead them into places the light can’t reach. It doesn’t mean there’s no light to be found. It means they require the assistance of a flashlight.

If examining our own evolution doesn’t yet explain everything there is to know about the human brain it certainly equipped us with perceptual machinery adamant on explaining it to ourselves. Whether we’re aware of it or not. And maybe that narrative ability is what separates us from the ‘beasts’ more than anything. That and self deception.

 

[wellwisher]

While reading an essay titled Philosophy-envy, some parts struck me as highly relevant commentary on the trend toward ultracrepidarianism among certain scientists and experts such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Steven Pinker, who have, on many occasions, opined on topics outside their fields of expertise with an unwarranted air of authority. The excerpts also discuss the extension of science beyond its scope, a topic that has come up on RF in many threads.

What the problem is, is connected to the idol worship and the prestige of celebrity. A rock musician who becomes a climate activist may not have any science background, but since they have prestige, money, gold records and fans, that makes some people assume their have it all on the ball. They could not get where there are, and be so dumb. With some scientists know how to market themselves and by becoming minor celebrities; TV, have minions who will just accept what they say, due to their celebrity status. A good idea, without the title of celebrity, will not get this same blind acceptance and VIP treatment.

This celebrity scam cuts both ways in that a negative celebrity effect, can also occur, where good ideas from a well plan perspective, will be seen as nonsense and ignored, if enough negative prestige is added; Trump. If you listen to Trump from 2016, he predicted the problems created by the open border illegal immigration crisis, that will impact the 2024 elections.

Below is from the 2016 Republican primaries, before Trump received the Republican nomination. At that time, even though Trump was not a politician; amateur in Government, he was given more freedom to express himself, by the Liberal press, due to his celebrity status, in pop culture and on TV. The negative celebrity scam; fake news disrespect, started after he was nominated and not seen as a spoiler for the Left but as adversary and spoiler for their scams.

The term denier, is used to give a negative celebrity tag to anyone not with the man made climate change agenda. It is a tactical way to drown out good ideas, even from experts in the field, by given the curse of negative science prestige to dissenters This is a tell for a scam. Science is more open and does not make it come down to personality and celebrity. All science is good, since one can learn from mistakes. Celebrity based prestige picks favorites, based on prestige, allowing one to pretend smarter by osmosis; groupie.

 

[Ostronomos]

Do you really believe there is such a thing?

A single word that captures my views on this topic is: Absolutely.

E.g. The Tao says that opposites must contrast in order to distinguish one from the other.

Another e.g. Buddhism says that the world is maya or illusion. Which fits nicely into non-materialistic Quantum phenomenon.

 

[Ostronomos]

I did as well.

I thought about when it was written, where he was in his life when he wrote it, considered the gentlemen you mentioned and what people seem to do when they admire an author or philosopher or scientist. They latch on. Not always but often. And if someone criticises their favourite author or philosopher or scientist it’s as though they are criticising them personally. You don’t like a certain book or particular theory? Is that met with a reasonable response? Only if they’ve detached themselves enough to understand it’s not their book or theory. They didn’t themselves write it or think it. Yet anything but a compliment is like kicking them in the junk.

Unlike you I do believe that rationalism has its drawbacks. For instance, as Quintessence said above, extremist materialism is logically flawed. Therefore, the only valid argument to consider is God and spirituality as equally valid aspects of reality.

Richard Dawkins has my respect as an evolutionary biologist. The Ancestor’s Tale is a gem. The fact that he went out on a limb as an outspoken atheist kicked down the door for folks like Sam Harris. Without The God Delusion there’d be no End of Faith.

While I admit that much of the world does not witness divine intervention, such a thing is quite possible. So while you tout the virtues of atheism, it is at its core false. Thus we arrive at a crossroad.

Rarely do I agree with everyone or every book by every author. Steven Pinker seems to cherry pick information so he can give everyone rose tinted glasses while he tells them exactly what they want to hear. It’s all very nice but highly suspicious. Still, I would take that gladly over listening to anything Jordan Peterson has to say about anything. Ptew!

This strikes me as suspicious in itself, ironically.

It's as though you are biased in your views. Which would not surprise me, since you are atheist after all and put your faith in matter rather than supertautologies.

The unfortunate thing about some of these lads is that they left neuroscience or psychology or snake oil sales for full time podcasting to whine about cancel culture. That...is a drag. We need to care less about them personally and focus on the work and they have to not care if we like them personally. I think it is up to each of us, as an individual, to remember these people are human. Humans make mistakes. But are equally entitled to hold views about any subject they please. Opinions outside one’s expertise must be measured and evaluated in a way that hero worship doesn’t end up turning it into gospel.

What we need is a singular metaphysics to unite humanity so that they can function as one. Rather than divided. Division leads to chaos. The absence of order.

In the hasty all or nothing condemnatory vs. admiration match up scenario audiences demand we relinquish the responsibility of separating these things and teasing out the relevant bits while handing over our own opinions and preferences to these so called authorities. Creating an aggressive feedback and defensive behavioural dynamic. Leaving exposed an emotional investment lacking the discipline you can detect straight away. You see it throughout the pages of these threads all the time. In the diatribes of a blowhard, the flailing knees of ruffled feathers or the misguided following of fiends.

And yet your remarks here echo the same diatribe of a passive aggressive believer in atheism. Despite the gaping holes in the atheist delusion. Atheistic denial is thus shaken to the core.

I think it’s great to be well rounded and gather knowledge from as many sources in as many areas as possible.

I would agree. God is the only logical conclusion to the multiverse theory.

Should an author be responsible for what happens after they render their writing? The audience can take it or leave it. We can take it or leave it. We can agree with some things and not others. All without hating each other. I don’t think love and hate have to come into the picture any more than right or wrong. The internet while enticing people into the same dark holes can eventually lead them into places the light can’t reach.

Strange that you mention light (entering as a fifth dimensional vibration), yet you claim yourself an atheist. I can equally ask, what vast knowledge lies at the source of mind?

It doesn’t mean there’s no light to be found. It means they require the assistance of a flashlight.

Here it is again.

If examining our own evolution doesn’t yet explain everything there is to know about the human brain it certainly equipped us with perceptual machinery adamant on explaining it to ourselves.

Appeal to authority much?

Whether we’re aware of it or not. And maybe that narrative ability is what separates us from the ‘beasts’ more than anything. That and self deception.

Beware this person. Their hypocrisy here is bordering on lies.

 

[Valjean]

While I admit that much of the world does not witness divine intervention, such a thing is quite possible. So while you tout the virtues of atheism, it is at its core false. Thus we arrive at a crossroad.

By what known mechanism is this possible?
How is atheism false at its core?

Show your work, por favor.

I would agree. God is the only logical conclusion to the multiverse theory.

I don't see how this follows. Explain?

Strange that you mention light (entering as a fifth dimensional vibration), yet you claim yourself an atheist. I can equally ask, what vast knowledge lies at the source of mind?

"Source of mind? Vast knowledge?" What evidence led you to this odd perspective?
Why does biochemistry require vast knowledge?

 

[Ostronomos]

By what known mechanism is this possible?

I am truly glad you asked me this question as it shines a light on something that remains rather obscure. It is possible to "step out of the matrix", however, one must be "chosen" by the "source of all that exists". At times I wonder why I was "chosen" (note: the scare quotes around "chosen", as this word may have negative connotations).

Every time I use, I not only expand my consciousness or mind, I may "step out of the matrix" in which I perceive both the wall in front of me as well as demonic forces trying to enter our universe if not for my loud Biblical "reality-generative" Biblical utterances that shield me against these forces. If it were not for those utterances I would be in immanent danger. It's as if the God is well-aware that I must demonstrate my faith in this supernatural dimension whereby there is a connection between my mind and the rest of the multi-verse. Note the many-worlds concept of Quantum theory.

I wrote: God reveals Himself to anyone at any time?

In the moment I closed my eyes I saw blackness reaching singularity in less than a second. And then nothing had meaning. It was the death of all the pain I've been nursing. There was no memory of anything. That is what it means to "live in the moment" as is the evil being promoted by some. A second longer and I would have seen hell, pure evil. The 'excrementation' of the complete I AM theory.

God binds our subjection with objectivity. This world is virtual and the other one is the real one. To have no identity of who one is and to live in the moment without God is to live in a false reality without meaning and it is indistinctive while one is alive witnessing everything without information on it is strictly a creature of sensory apparatus and not a shred of understanding through the heart.

Call this an the awakening that comes after recovering from a sudden singularity of blackness and nothingness. The ability to regain meaning of all things (and to eliminate the indistinctiveness of each object including the indistinctiveness of my physical body in a world of strictly objects) required my absolute concentration on God. It was necessary for my sake to obtain comprehensibility. I took a number of steps to regain my identity and with it the meaning that defined each object including my physical self. God was necessary in my ability to regain comprehension of anything and to welcome a fresh and positive reality and leave behind all the negativity that, when wiped out in that moment, left me in a world of strictly objects. This was probably why the loss of identity creates fear - it opens one to the world of absolute negativity, a world without God. Imagine not knowing that your physical body belonged to you, kind of like a sudden state of permanent amnesia. Strict materialism (belief in objects) leaves one in a world of no meaning. This is why mind is necessary to extract information from matter. The physical brain and body is not the mind.

Meaning is what is necessary to distinguish mind from objects and thus the physical body from mind itself along with the other distinct objects that are distinct from the physical self-identity.

To live in each moment is to have no memory of the self and thus no distinction of mind from physical body.

After regaining the meaning of people/objects and regular objects was when I was able to see that subjectivity is required for us to recognize our physical identity and with it who we are (the "I AM") and our needs. "Bliss" is the state of being an automaton or a system of sensory apparatus' incapable of human function because subjectivity is needed in order to self-determine oneself from the object world and thus create meaning/information (without meaning objects give no distinctive information and thus both objects and their characteristic interpretation in relation to the self and the ability to distinguish between mind and body will be lost, the mind must distinguish the physical self from objects otherwise one looks at all things without recognition or priority) and to be given it by concentrating on The Provider and Creator of meaning/information.

On meaning

We create meaning and the meaning creates the "what" identification of each and every object including the physical body. The provider of the meaning of the objective universe and thus the creation of the meaning that enables us to recognize our physical body as a separate object from the mind and therefore the physical body and the mind from objects in general is God. Otherwise reality would be a world of false objects as the object world is virtual and exists in space and time as opposed to reality. The subjective reality creates the meaning that enables us to function meaningfully and to recognize the mind, and therefore the body, from the object.

I must tell you that the physical world is virtual and the informational one is real. We have always argued about whether the reality of matter is virtual versus the reality of information. I assume the information being spoken about is what gives objects irreducible complexity.
Assume that we were functioning in a world of specified complexity, a roach can have absolutely no difference in meaning to a loved one or death itself and the response to all would be the same as there would be no information to distinguish them. Kind of similar to a blankened, mindless physical brain interpreting and operating in a reality of purely neuromuscular and sensory apparatus which would lead to a physical object that perceives not a shred of information from any object and thus could not act.

The will of our mind and self-determination to exist gives meaning to matter (as opposed to strictly appearing to be objects) and therefore information can be perceived.

How is atheism false at its core?

Atheism is held up only by the flimsy argument of materialism.

Show your work, por favor.

I don't see how this follows. Explain?

"Source of mind? Vast knowledge?" What evidence led you to this odd perspective?
Why does biochemistry require vast knowledge?

Everything in the world about us, is an illusion that enters the mind in the form of language or information. The mind is the ultimate source of reality. Without the mind, there is no reality. It creates reality through its own viewing and perception. And it even reaches beyond the face and body into the material world. I happen to know that a single thought can influence the probability of an event occurring. Recall one of my axioms in my "Axioms of Metaphysics" thread; The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

Little do most people know that I am the genius prophesized by Michelle Nostradamus in the 16th century who not only unites science and religion, but all religions. I have a dual identity in which I enter a deep relaxation and perceive only truth.