Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[Student of X]

...you didn't answer me.

True. There's lots of reasons why. Here's the top ten.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

True. There's lots of reasons why. Here's the top ten.

If you simply wanted to rant then act like a grumpy child, I suggest not doing so in the debate sections.

 

[Student of X]

Grumpy? Sorry I don't mean to seem grumpy. I just think science kinda sucks and I wanted to say so. If you really want to debate about it, I guess we can.

You asked about premises. I think that to do science right, we need to change the premises of science so that it can "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."

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_2_jahn.pdf

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Grumpy? Sorry I don't mean to seem grumpy. I just think science kinda sucks and I wanted to say so. If you really want to debate about it, I guess we can.

You asked about premises. I think that to do science right, we need to change the premises of science so that it can "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."

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_2_jahn.pdf

How would you go about that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Yes I would, Kent."

I might get in trouble for violating rule 6.

That's a bit of a cop-out. You can talk about the effects of drugs without describing your own use of them or encouraging people to take them. That is what you're getting at, right?

Assuming it is, why would you think that drugs are a means to learn about any aspect of the universe other than how various substances cause hallucinations and other imaginary effects?

 

[Student of X]

How would you go about that?

Maybe OWS could Occupy Science?

And then do a "scholarly examination of rule-change scenarios".

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Maybe OWS could Occupy Science?

And then do a "scholarly examination of rule-change scenarios".

...what does that even mean?

 

[Iti oj]

dude science studies the "uni Paradigm" the one that underlays all subjective experiences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know. Material monism, reductionism, physicalism, etc.

It seems like you're just upset about people deciding to only bother to measure measurable things.

Science doesn't say that nothing exists beyond the physical; it merely recognizes that the tools we have to gain knowledge only work for the physical. Beyond that, we'd just be pulling stuff out of our butts, but science concerns itself only with things that can be known.

 

[McBell]

'Collecting and Classifying the Data of the Damned'.

:biglaugh:

The very first sentence:

Most scholars dismiss research into the paranormal as pseudoscience, a frivolous pursuit for the paranoid or gullible.
​

And that is your example?
seriously?

:biglaugh:

 

[Student of X]

That's a bit of a cop-out. You can talk about the effects of drugs without describing your own use of them or encouraging people to take them.

I don't think so.

Assuming it is, why would you think that drugs are a means to learn about any aspect of the universe other than how various substances cause hallucinations and other imaginary effects?

Your phraseology suggests to me that you are making a priori assumptions about what's 'real' and what isn't.

One long-past innocent day, in my prefolly youth, I came upon a statement in an undistinguished textbook on psychiatry that, as when Kant read Hume, woke me forever from my garden-of-eden slumber. "The psychotic does not merely think he sees four blue bivalves with floppy wings wandering up the wall; he does see them. An hallucination is not, strictly speaking, manufactured in the brain; it is received by the brain, like any 'real' sense datum, and the patient act in response to this to-him-very-real perception of reality in as logical a way as we do to our sense data. In any way to suppose he only 'thinks he sees it' is to misunderstand totally the experience of psychosis."

"Drugs, Hallucinations, and the Quest for Reality" (1964)

 

[McBell]

Would you mind telling us what some of these tools might be?

"Yes I would, Kent."

I might get in trouble for violating rule 6.

Now i know you are merely trying to blow smoke up the backsides of whomever will let you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your phraseology suggests to me that you are making a priori assumptions about what's 'real' and what isn't.

No, it's a conclusion drawn from evidence, not an a priori assumption. I have actually put a fair bit of thought into the effects of drugs long before this conversation.

One long-past innocent day, in my prefolly youth, I came upon a statement in an undistinguished textbook on psychiatry that, as when Kant read Hume, woke me forever from my garden-of-eden slumber. "The psychotic does not merely think he sees four blue bivalves with floppy wings wandering up the wall; he does see them. An hallucination is not, strictly speaking, manufactured in the brain; it is received by the brain, like any 'real' sense datum, and the patient act in response to this to-him-very-real perception of reality in as logical a way as we do to our sense data. In any way to suppose he only 'thinks he sees it' is to misunderstand totally the experience of psychosis."

"Drugs, Hallucinations, and the Quest for Reality" (1964)

So you're suggesting solipsism? It's not clear that you are, but it seems to be where you're heading.

How would one go about determining whether some idea, whether obtained by hallucination or by any other means, is actually true?

 

[Reptillian]

I'd say this is wrong. Science has done things religion can't even dream about.

Sort of a "not only is reality queerer than we suppose, its queerer than we can suppose" or "there are more thing in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" approach eh?

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?

Technology is an outcropping of science...its a product that science generates. Like all tools, technology can be a force for good or a force for evil. You can use atomic energy to power cities or destroy them. Genetically modified food could lead to disaster, or to a utopia filled with free, tasty, highly nutritious food.

I am more of the mind that intentional ignorance "sucks".

But hey, that's just me...

If philosophers like Plato and Confucius were right, then not only does it "suck" but it's the root of all evil and human ills in the world.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Getting back to your original post, I want to say that I'm basically on your side.

In these discussions we use the term 'Scientists' as if they all have the same materialistic/reductionist/atheistic-agnostic mindset. They may be great in their particular area of expertise but when they get into spiritual discussions they are no better or worse than anyone else.

The big problem with the rigid scientists are that they believe our known physical universe is all there is. When confronted with well documented paranormal events and experiments that cannot be explained in their rigid paradigm they are forced to deny it as hoax, faulty observation, poor experiments, co-incidence, or something else within the known range of physical phenomena. Many of their criticisms of the paranormal researchers are just poor attempts to explain away something they wish wouldn't be there.

After studying the paranormal for decades now, I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that things do happen that can never be explained by the rigid materialist paradigm.

 

[PolyHedral]

Sort of a "not only is reality queerer than we suppose, its queerer than we can suppose" or "there are more thing in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" approach eh?

The electronics designers are running into problems because the electrons are teleporting through the gaps between the (nanometer-thick) wires.

In any non-scientific model of reality, electrons do not work that way!

 

[tumbleweed41]

Apparently the OP dislikes science because the scientific method relies heavily on objective empirical evidence and naturalistic observable results rather than subjective verification of non-repeatable personal visions and hallucinations.

 

[Student of X]

Apparently the OP dislikes science because the scientific method relies heavily on objective empirical evidence and naturalistic observable results rather than subjective verification of non-repeatable personal visions and hallucinations.

It also relies on social norms and taboos and a flawed peer-review process and mindguards and the old guard and "direct intellectual suppression".

http://ww.davidjhess.org/DisciplHetJAI.pdf

 

[Iti oj]

dude science studies the "uni Paradigm" the one that underlays all subjective experiences.

bump sine i speak your language

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It also relies on social norms and taboos and a flawed peer-review process and mindguards and the old guard and "direct intellectual suppression".

http://ww.davidjhess.org/DisciplHetJAI.pdf

Half-way through you switched from actual words to gibberish. Please consider revising.