E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
Yeah. Just think where we'd be if the mystics and seers hadn't been in the forefront of technological progress.
-Nato
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks
- Thread starter Student of X
- Start date
-Nato
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
That goes for science too. Some things kinda suck but they have their season.
Last edited:
That goes for science too. Some things kinda suck but they have their season.
This implies that on certain occasions, there are tools that are better than science for learning about the physical universe and the things in it. Would you mind telling us what some of these tools might be?
I much prefer toasted bagels to untoasted bagels, particularly the onion bagels with lox, creamcheese, onions and capers. Otherwise you do not have a reasonably firm platform should you choose to add tomatoes.
Don't know why I said that. I guess I just figuresd that one totally irrelevant response deserved another -- although I must admit that the reference to 'capers' is not anywhere near as pretentious as dropping 'monism' in a sentence or two.
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
OK. Sorry to keep you waiting. The current Western scientific worldview is "material monism," In this philosophy, everything (both matter and energy) is made of a single substance. Everything emerges from matter, including the illusion of mind. Mind is just what brains do, nothing more. Mind isn't "real". Only brains are. Reduce, reduce, reduce!
The techniques I propose are based on a "mental monism" philosophy instead. Consciousness is fundamental and primary, and matter and energy are illusions - merely emergent properties of consciousness.
Last edited:
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Is it testable?
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Yes, when the test is based on mental monism premises instead of material monism premises.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
And what premises would those be?
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Premises that are hard to real-ize.
But anyway, this is my rant about science. Right?
What do you guys think of the peer-review system? I'm rather disappointed with it myself.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
And how about all those science delusions? Is that nuts or what?
[youtube]-XcfhGxdZ3Y[/youtube]
The Science Delusion - YouTube
Shermana
Heretic
Peer Review is "faith based" says this peer-reviewed article.
Scientific Journals are
Essentially, "Scientism" and total trust in the process is little different than any other "religion".
Scientific Journals are
Essentially, "Scientism" and total trust in the process is little different than any other "religion".
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
...you didn't answer me.Premises that are hard to real-ize.
But anyway, this is my rant about science. Right?
What do you guys think of the peer-review system? I'm rather disappointed with it myself.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
And how about all those science delusions? Is that nuts or what?
[youtube]-XcfhGxdZ3Y[/youtube]
The Science Delusion - YouTube
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
This almost feels obligatory:
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."
I'd say this is wrong. Science has done things religion can't even dream about.
The premises are irrelevant; Does your approach successfully predict reality?
I disagree.
What is science? Science is everything that you used to make this thread, everything we use to make computers, write books, create films, iPods, music, cars, stereos, radios, printers, television....
Science is life.
If you think science sucks, you think life sucks.
Science is nothing more AND nothing less than life.
What is science? Science is everything that you used to make this thread, everything we use to make computers, write books, create films, iPods, music, cars, stereos, radios, printers, television....
Science is life.
If you think science sucks, you think life sucks.
Science is nothing more AND nothing less than life.
This is not the scientific worldview, Student, and science is certainly not based on this. I'll bet most biologists, chemists or geologists have never even heard of monism.
This monism is a possible corollary of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics or superstring "theory." It's not mainstream and nothing is based on it.
Science is based on the scientific method.
So, mental monism, (I didn't know there was any other kind) what is this "consciousness?" Can you measure it? Is this a philosophy or an observation based hypothesis?
Shermana
Heretic
There's a difference between the current definition of "science" and "Technological application".
The invention of the computer is just a development of the same kind of computing machines that began in the late 1800s and is more or less the process of mechanical invention which has been around since the old days. Was Nicola Tesla even considered a "scientist"? Or is he more commonly called an "inventor"? Is the discovery of "electricity" and how to harness it truly a "Science"?
What exactly is this catch-all word "Science" in the first place?
"Science" in its modern usage of the term is now mostly about theories and (generally biased and financially-motivated) presumptions based on the evidence of what the technology has been used to examine.
Is the invention of "Aspartame" truly science? No, it's more or less a technology. Is Genetically modified food really a "Science"? Or is it a technology, and a harmful technology at that? Heck, Europe and Japan won't allow either of these abominations in their borders. Are they great "scientific advances" like the computer is called? Or just a frankenstein of technological abuse?
The invention of the computer is just a development of the same kind of computing machines that began in the late 1800s and is more or less the process of mechanical invention which has been around since the old days. Was Nicola Tesla even considered a "scientist"? Or is he more commonly called an "inventor"? Is the discovery of "electricity" and how to harness it truly a "Science"?
What exactly is this catch-all word "Science" in the first place?
"Science" in its modern usage of the term is now mostly about theories and (generally biased and financially-motivated) presumptions based on the evidence of what the technology has been used to examine.
Is the invention of "Aspartame" truly science? No, it's more or less a technology. Is Genetically modified food really a "Science"? Or is it a technology, and a harmful technology at that? Heck, Europe and Japan won't allow either of these abominations in their borders. Are they great "scientific advances" like the computer is called? Or just a frankenstein of technological abuse?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I am more of the mind that intentional ignorance "sucks".
But hey, that's just me...
But hey, that's just me...
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Like I said, it's just sort of smuggled in and accepted at a sociological level. It's just part of the culture, it doesn't need to be explicitly heard of.
Science is not done in a vacuum, and it progresses funeral by funeral.
It's the opposite of what material monists (scientists don't know there is any other kind) mean by "matter".
Can you?
Both, I would say.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
So, your substance is "anything that lacks both mass and volume (occupies space)"?