Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[ArtieE]

I can't believe that in this day and age people defend naive realism with science.

So who's responsible for the technology making this video real if not science? Or isn't the video real?

 

[Student of X]

So who's responsible for the technology making this video real if not science? Or isn't the video real?

Ah, the appeal to technology. I understand that it's hard to disentangle the combination of science and invention. But, the appeal to technology is a fallacy that I hear over and over again. In its crudest form, it goes like this:

We understand some things about this world. Therefore, only this world exists.

The atheists back in the stone age learned how to initiate a fire. Therefore, they concluded, materialism is true.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Ah, the appeal to technology. I understand that it's hard to disentangle the combination of science and invention. But, the appeal to technology is a fallacy that I hear over and over again.

Your position would be a lot stronger if you could point to all the things we've come to understand better about our universe thanks to mystics.

-Nato

 

[ArtieE]

Ah, the appeal to technology. I understand that it's hard to disentangle the combination of science and invention. But, the appeal to technology is a fallacy that I hear over and over again. In its crudest form, it goes like this:

We understand some things about this world. Therefore, only this world exists.

Show me a video produced with non-scientific methods used in other worlds.

The atheists back in the stone age learned how to initiate a fire. Therefore, they concluded, materialism is true.

Show me a fire started with non-scientific methods belonging to some other world.

 

[Student of X]

Show me a video produced with non-scientific methods used in other worlds.
Show me a fire started with non-scientific methods belonging to some other world.

 

[Iti oj]

is that a no then?

 

[Student of X]

is that a no then?

I'm saying that his understanding is so deeply flawed that he can't even begin to ask the right questions. So, I'm not going to bother with him until he gets himself up to speed with some independent learning.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm saying that his understanding is so deeply flawed that he can't even begin to ask the right questions. So, I'm not going to bother with him until he gets himself up to speed with some independent learning.

You are using technological tools such as computers and youtube videos based on scientific knowledge. Therefore materialism is true. If you can use other methods besides technological tools which are not based on scientific knowledge to get your point across to us please do.

 

[TLowe27]

Science is clumsy, limited, and overrated? Science has done things that religion can only dream about.

Science has indeed done so much to explain how things work and drastically improve our way of life. However, I do think science is limited because it tries to give an explanation of life, of the universe, by showing its causes. Here is where religion fills in what science has left. Religion explains by purpose. For surely, one does not come to an understanding of a machine solely by understanding its parts. I could completely know how circuits and wheels and bolts work together to make a car function and still not understand a car. One must know the PURPOSE of a thing to truly understand it. Here, science fails where religion succeeds.

 

[PolyHedral]

Science has indeed done so much to explain how things work and drastically improve our way of life. However, I do think science is limited because it tries to give an explanation of life, of the universe, by showing its causes. Here is where religion fills in what science has left. Religion explains by purpose. For surely, one does not come to an understanding of a machine solely by understanding its parts. I could completely know how circuits and wheels and bolts work together to make a car function and still not understand a car. One must know the PURPOSE of a thing to truly understand it. Here, science fails where religion succeeds.

You mean that religion jumps to conclusions without bothering with the justifying reasoning? If that's what you want to call "success," be my guest, but it's not very useful to me.

 

[Student of X]

Are you sure you're a mystic? Or do you just think it's a cool word to use in a title.

 

[Reptillian]

Ah, the appeal to technology. I understand that it's hard to disentangle the combination of science and invention. But, the appeal to technology is a fallacy that I hear over and over again. In its crudest form, it goes like this:

We understand some things about this world. Therefore, only this world exists.

The atheists back in the stone age learned how to initiate a fire. Therefore, they concluded, materialism is true.

The appeal to technology isn't a fallacy. Technology is the fruit of science. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So if the scientific method produces good fruit, then doesn't that mean its a good tree?

Science has indeed done so much to explain how things work and drastically improve our way of life. However, I do think science is limited because it tries to give an explanation of life, of the universe, by showing its causes. Here is where religion fills in what science has left. Religion explains by purpose. For surely, one does not come to an understanding of a machine solely by understanding its parts. I could completely know how circuits and wheels and bolts work together to make a car function and still not understand a car. One must know the PURPOSE of a thing to truly understand it. Here, science fails where religion succeeds.

I used to think the same thing when I was younger. Then I realized that reductionism isn't the only scientific world view. Purpositiveness is an wholistic way of thinking, but its still something that can be observed and understood. The entire science of biology is an wholistic approach to the phenomenon of life. It isn't religion that helps me to understand why a bird's beak is shaped a certain way, or why a caterpiller has a certain coloration. That wasn't revealed to me in a vision after an evening of prayer...it was observation and experiment!

 

[Student of X]

The appeal to technology isn't a fallacy. Technology is the fruit of science. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So if the scientific method produces good fruit, then doesn't that mean its a good tree?

Technology isn't the fruit of science. It's the fruit of consciousness. Technology can be developed whether or not we swallow the whole science narrative and salute the materialist creed.

Have you heard of Charles Tart? He wrote a book last year, The End of Materialism. He differentiates between essential science and scientism. You might want to check it out.

Charles Tart reconciles the scientific and spiritual worlds by looking at empirical evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena that point toward our spiritual nature, including telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and psychic healing.

Science seems to tell us that we are all meaningless products of blind biological and chemical forces, leading meaningless lives that will eventually end in death. The truth is that unseen forces such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and other phenomena inextricably link us to the spiritual world, and while many skeptics and scientists deny the existence of these spiritual phenomena, the experiences of millions of people indicate that they do take place.

In this book, copublished with the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), transpersonal psychologist Charles Tart presents over fifty years of scientific research conducted at the nation's leading universities that proves humans do have natural spiritual impulses and abilities. The End of Materialism presents an elegant argument for the union of science and spirituality in light of this new evidence, and explains why a truly rational viewpoint must address the reality of a spiritual world. Tart's work marks the beginning of an evidence-based spiritual awakening that will profoundly influence your understanding of the deeper forces at work in our lives.

 

[Reptillian]

Technology isn't the fruit of science. It's the fruit of consciousness. Technology can be developed whether or not we swallow the whole science narrative and salute the materialist creed.

Have you heard of Charles Tart? He wrote a book last year, The End of Materialism. He differentiates between essential science and scientism. You might want to check it out.

Charles Tart reconciles the scientific and spiritual worlds by looking at empirical evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena that point toward our spiritual nature, including telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and psychic healing.

Science seems to tell us that we are all meaningless products of blind biological and chemical forces, leading meaningless lives that will eventually end in death. The truth is that unseen forces such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and other phenomena inextricably link us to the spiritual world, and while many skeptics and scientists deny the existence of these spiritual phenomena, the experiences of millions of people indicate that they do take place.

In this book, copublished with the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), transpersonal psychologist Charles Tart presents over fifty years of scientific research conducted at the nation's leading universities that proves humans do have natural spiritual impulses and abilities. The End of Materialism presents an elegant argument for the union of science and spirituality in light of this new evidence, and explains why a truly rational viewpoint must address the reality of a spiritual world. Tart's work marks the beginning of an evidence-based spiritual awakening that will profoundly influence your understanding of the deeper forces at work in our lives.

If there is empirical evidence for the existence of "paranormal phenomena" then said phenomena likely lies withing the scope of science? If technology is the fruit of consciousness, then why don't dolphins have more technology? Why didn't ancient greek philosophy produce electric motors? I guess don't share your vision of a future where ghosts and magic spells power light bulbs.

Science has little to say about meaning, biology can make statements like "life forms are composed of cells" and chemistry can say "matter is made of atoms that interact in the following way" but we're left to interpret the personal importance of these discoveries.

 

[Student of X]

If there is empirical evidence for the existence of "paranormal phenomena" then said phenomena likely lies withing the scope of science?

No. Not until science changes the rules. Then, I won't think science kinda sucks. I'll think it kinda rocks.

Change the Rules!
ROBERT G. JAHN AND BRENDA J. DUNNE
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
School of Engineering and Applied Science
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-5263
[email protected]

Abstract

Although consciousness-correlated physical phenomena are widely and credibly documented, their appearance and behavior display substantial departures from conventional scientific criteria. Under even the most rigorous protocols, they are only irregularly replicable, and they appear to be insensitive to most basic physical coordinates, including distance and time. Rather, their strongest correlations are with various subjective parameters, such as intention, emotional resonance, uncertainty, attitude, and meaning, and information processing at an unconscious level appears to be involved.

If science, by its most basic definition, is to pursue understanding and utilization of these extraordinary processes, it will need to expand its current paradigm to acknowledge and codify a proactive role for the mind in the establishment of physical events, and to accommodate the spectrum of empirically indicated subjective correlates. The challenges of quantitative measurement and theoretical conceptualization within such a ‘‘Science of the Subjective’’ are formidable, but its potential intellectual and cultural benefits could be immense, not least of all in improving the reach, the utility, the attitude, and the image of science itself.

If technology is the fruit of consciousness, then why don't dolphins have more technology? Why didn't ancient greek philosophy produce electric motors? I guess don't share your vision of a future where ghosts and magic spells power light bulbs.

Maybe that's because that's not my vision. It's a crude caricature.

 

[atanu]

I admire the way the thread has been steered.

Today, in newspaper there was an item: Baldness cure is here. It seems that application of some stem cell technology will make it possible.

Scientific method is excellent. But being concerned mainly with graspable objects the emphasis is often on cosmetic aspects, ignoring that which grasps. Science also seems to reinforce the idea "I am this body, so I must grow hair on my bald head".

 

[ArtieE]

No. Not until science changes the rules. Then, I won't think science kinda sucks. I'll think it kinda rocks.

Are you trying to say that when science in the future has explained for example telepathy or precognition and removed it from the realm of mysticism and put it to good use the world will be better? Like in Minority Report?

 

[Me Myself]

You can't because mental and neutral monism predict that consciousness has much or some to do with the most fundamental nature of reality. Including the consciousness of others trying to repeat a prediction. How are you going to shield a prediction from reality itself? There is no Archimedean point outside of consciousness.

Monism and science dont contradict each other.

I agree for some science has become a religion, but for what it is supposed to be, it is a field based in a method (the scientific method). And this method is an INCREDIBLY SUCCESFUL one that has achieved a lot.

And that´s that.

 

[Quiddity]

Monism and science dont contradict each other.

I agree for some science has become a religion, but for what it is supposed to be, it is a field based in a method (the scientific method). And this method is an INCREDIBLY SUCCESFUL one that has achieved a lot.

And that´s that.

It's a stretch calling it a religion nevertheless...

 

[Me Myself]

It's a stretch calling it a religion nevertheless...

I say "for some people" to try to explain my point.

But maybe it´s clearer if I say that some people that treat it as a starts all end all would be treating it as a kind of religion.

I don´t really equate religion to science or vice versa