Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[Student of X]

You really are hung up on semantics.

I don't see any inconsistency there. You don't have to force mysticism into science, it already is mystical.

OK, sorry.

In the larger scheme of things, you're right. Science is already mystical, in a manner of speaking.

I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time with this thread. If a mod would simply delete it, I would appreciate it. I learned my lesson. I won't criticize science anymore.

 

[gnomon]

So... you're not wrapping the thread, but re-opening it under this new topic?

Yes.


No.

Maybe.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time with this thread. If a mod would simply delete it, I would appreciate it. I learned my lesson. I won't criticize science anymore.

If you are going to utilize (either deliberately or without knowing it) post-positivist philosophies of science (esp. those of Quine, Feyerabend, Kuhn, and those who built upon their work on underdetermination, incommensurability, etc.), then at least do so more coherently and with a more defensible explanation.

 

[Student of X]

If you are going to utilize (either deliberately or without knowing it) post-positivist philosophies of science (esp. those of Quine, Feyerabend, Kuhn, and those who built upon their work on underdetermination, incommensurability, etc.), then at least do so more coherently and with a more defensible explanation.

In other words, go to school and study the right things before you criticize the authorities and the elite. Don't even try to think that your 'mystical experiences' tell you anything about reality that science can't. Gotcha. I'll learn my place.

 

[McBell]

Yeah, what would be the "right set" of evidence to prove there are no "gods"? It's hard enough getting Atheists to answer what they'd consider solid evidence for a god to begin with, what kind of criteria would they use to say there's no gods?

How about the fact that there is zero objective empirical evidence for any of the alleged gods?

 

[idav]

I think that scientists are letting us all down, and I'll tell you why. I think science is clumsy and limited and overrated, yet there is a perception that science is unlimited in scope and potential, and science has a sort of prestige that I think is counterproductive. I don't like it when a scientist is given undue credibility for statements outside his or her area of expertise.

Science is based on flawed philosophical premises, and these premises are sort of smuggled in and forgotten about. As a result many people have a totally skewed sense of reality because of science, and scientism is practically a religion.

Anyway, sorry for the rant.

Along with Math, Science is one of the most powerful tools we have. What is clumsy in general are humans with our limitations but this doesn't change just cause your in a different field.

 

[idav]

How about the fact that there is zero objective empirical evidence for any of the alleged gods?

There is clear evidence that there is a huge potential of power and energy in the universe since the beginning. Any being that can manage to tap even a fraction of this power will be god-like. The more knowledge the more power.

 

[McBell]

In other words, go to school and study the right things before you criticize the authorities and the elite. Don't even try to think that your 'mystical experiences' tell you anything about reality that science can't. Gotcha. I'll learn my place.

If that is all you got from the post you quoted, you have some serious reading comprehension problems.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In other words, go to school and study the right things before you criticize the authorities and the elite.

Actually, school is not a requirement. They have these things called "books" and "journals" you can buy or even get for free (on the internet, from a library, etc.). And as the work I referenced either supports your view or at least provides a more supportable foundation for a critique of the scientific method, I'm giving you the names/theories which "criticize the authorities and the elite." They just do it in a far more nuanced, defensible, and relevant way (not that I agree with the more radical post-positivist views).

Don't even try to think that your 'mystical experiences' tell you anything about reality that science can't. Gotcha. I'll learn my place.

Feyerabend (PhD), despite having no religious affiliation to speak of, equated creationism with evolution. I'm giving you people who have done your work for you so that you need not reinvent the wheel.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Student of X]

Actually, school is not a requirement. They have these things called "books" and "journals" you can buy or even get for free (on the internet, from a library, etc.). And as the work I referenced either supports your view or at least provides a more supportable foundation for a critique of the scientific method, I'm giving you the names/theories which "criticize the authorities and the elite." They just do it in a far more nuanced, defensible, and relevant way (not that I agree with the more radical post-positivist views).

Right, so I don't have to go to school and I don't have to hope that circumstances allow me to stumble onto just the right "books" or "journals" as I live my damn life. Gotcha. I just gotta wait for a snarky agnostic to come along and set me straight. My hero!

 

[McBell]

Right, so I don't have to go to school and I don't have to hope that circumstances allow me to stumble onto just the right "books" or "journals" as I live my damn life. Gotcha. I just gotta wait for a snarky agnostic to come along and set me straight. My hero!

Interesting how you are so sure you already know everything that you bite the hands of those who are not against you.

Such superior behavior must only be attainable through the breaking of rule six, right?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Right, so I don't have to go to school and I don't have to hope that circumstances allow me to stumble onto just the right "books" or "journals" as I live my damn life.

I gave you the names and the theories so no "stumbling" is necessary. Wikipedia will give you the major books. And your thread is not about "living your life" but a critique of science and the scientific method. If you want to critique something, it's usually a good thing to acquaint yourself with it (and with other critiques).

Gotcha. I just gotta wait for a snarky agnostic to come along and set me straight. My hero!

My pleasure. And please, no need to call me hero. Idol or role model will work just fine.

 

[Student of X]

I gave you the names and the theories so no "stumbling" is necessary. Wikipedia will give you the major books. And your thread is not about "living your life" but a critique of science and the scientific method. If you want to critique something, it's usually a good thing to acquaint yourself with it (and with other critiques).

So let me get this straight. You expect me to make threads that meet your standards without requiring me to go to school and without requiring me to have prior knowledge of the particular names and theories that your standards require, which most people would learn of in school?

My pleasure. And please, no need to call me hero. Idol or role model will work just fine.

 

[shawn001]

Student x, why are you on a "sucky" computer brought to you by science?

Why are you not living off the grid in a cave?

 

[Student of X]

Student x, why are you on a "sucky" computer brought to you by science?

Why are you not living off the grid in a cave?

 

[shawn001]

you didn't answer the question?

How many things do use everyday brought to you by science?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So let me get this straight. You expect me to make threads that meet your standards without requiring me to go to school and without requiring me to have prior knowledge of the particular names and theories that your standards require, which most people would learn of in school?

No, what I expect is that you will continue to believe what you do already and continue to argue it in the way that you do. I'm just providing you material/names which you could use to educate yourself about a topic you appear to be interested in. As for school, I read Kuhn before I ever attended college, and most of what I do for research/grad work involves what I taught myself. Far more important than an undergrad degree is knowing what sources to read and how to research (unless you're a genius like Ramanujan, in which case your brilliance will enable you to do much more with far less), and this need not require school.

 

[Student of X]

No, what I expect is that you will continue to believe what you do already and continue to argue it in the way that you do. I'm just providing you material/names which you could use to educate yourself about a topic you appear to be interested in. As for school, I read Kuhn before I ever attended college, and most of what I do for research/grad work involves what I taught myself. Far more important than an undergrad degree is knowing what sources to read and how to research (unless you're a genius like Ramanujan, in which case your brilliance will enable you to do much more with far less), and this need not require school.

Well we all come from different backgrounds. My background and my interests didn't lead me to Kuhn or to college. My interests don't lead me to science or to philosophy and my circumstances didn't permit college. So sue me.

Yes I have an interest in science but only insofar as scientism activists oppose things that I know to be true via mystical / paranormal experience. I can't easily talk about it because of rule 6. That might seem like a cop-out but it isn't.

 

[Student of X]

you didn't answer the question?

How many things do use everyday brought to you by science?

So what you're saying is, 'we understand some things about this world. Therefore, only this world exists.'

 

[shawn001]

So what you're saying is, 'we understand some things about this world. Therefore, only this world exists.'

No first off I aksed

How many things do use everyday brought to you by science?

But your still not answering the question.

What is only this world?

You mean the universe?

You do know the difference between something natural and something supernatural yes?