Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[Reptillian]

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!

Quantum tunnelling I'd imagine.

In any non-scientific model of reality, I'd suppose there are no electrons. They'd probably think electricity was "lightning juice made from that liquidy stuff that burns my skin when I touch it, you know, after I dunk that shiny stuff made from rocks and fire in it" They'd look at a wire and say, "It's witchcraft!!! Burn the man that made this and caused us to think about it! Buuurrnn Hiimm!!"

Or they'd say, "The conscious mental atoms that we call electrons are sending a telepathic message to my conscious mind and telling me that they are flowing through the mental construct that we both call a wire. They've decided that its not a fun game anymore, and are now going off to find a more interesting activity."

 

[outhouse]

hypocritical display of ignornace


writing from a computer science developed

surviving ONLY from anti-biotics science developed



After watching TV and listening to the radio that science developed

 

[Revoltingest]

hypocritical display of ignornace
writing from a computer science developed
surviving ONLY from anti-biotics science developed
After watching TV and listening to the radio that science developed

Subverting science is made easy by the fruits of science.
Before the internet, we had to use books!

 

[Skeptisch]

When we replace ignorance with knowledge through education, isn’t there also a good chance we replace Abrahamic, supernatural, faith based thinking with evidence based skeptical thinking?

“Ignorance” should not have a derogatory connotation since it simply means “a lack of knowledge”.

 

[shawn001]

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.

Your most likely alive and here to say this because of science.

So your on a computer saying this? You have heat probably a place to live, a car possibly, access to medicine, watch tv, and so much more you don't even realize it seems. You get the weather from science, we understand volcanoes and earthquakes because of science, we went to the moon because of science.

 

[shawn001]

You know there is a quote

""Only barbarians are not curious about where they come from, how they came to be where they are, where they appear to to be going, whether they wish to go there and if so, why and if not, why not..."
Isaiah berlin

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Wah.

Science doesn't pander to my mystical-schmistical fantasies.

Wah.

-Nato

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Well, that's too bad. Hope you like all the computers, phones, medicine, food, vehicles, buildings and all the general comforts of life that science provides regardless.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

He says, on a computer connected to the internet.
Oh, the irony...

 

[cablescavenger]

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.

Science does have it's downsides. It gave us the bible.

 

[Student of X]

Science does have it's downsides.

Yes it has downsides. So it kinda sucks. As opposed to totally sucking.

It gave us the bible.

Evidently, science gives us the false impression that it gave us the Bible.

That would be one of the downsides.

 

[Student of X]

Subverting science is made easy by the fruits of science.

I don't want to subvert science. I want to rescue it from scientism and place it on philosophical ground that is more solid than materialism. Then it wouldn't suck as much.

Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels

Abstract

"Minority views on technical issues are largely absent from the public arena. Increasingly corporate organization of science has led to knowledge monopolies, which, with the unwitting help of uncritical mass media, effect a kind of censorship. Since corporate scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies. A related aspect of contemporary science is commercialization.

Science is now altogether different from the traditional disinterested search, by self-motivated individuals, to understand the world. What national and international organizations publicly proclaim as scientific information is not safeguarded by the traditional process of peer review. Society needs new arrangements to ensure that public information about matters of science will be trustworthy.

Actions to curb the power of the monopolies and cartels can be conceived: mandatory funding of contrarian research, mandatory presence of contrarian opinion on advisory panels, a Science Court to adjudicate technical controversies, ombudsman offices at a variety of organizations. Most sorely needed is vigorously investigative science journalism."

 

[cablescavenger]

Yes it has downsides. So it kinda sucks. As opposed to totally sucking.

Evidently, science gives us the false impression that it gave us the Bible.

That would be one of the downsides.

Even cuneiform tablets didn't invent themselves. Nor did Papyrus, paper or the printing press.
Do you think your beliefs would be the same if it wasn't for these inventions? I very much doubt it since everything would have to be committed to memory or etched on a cave wall.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't want to subvert science. I want to rescue it from scientism and place it on philosophical ground that is more solid than materialism.

Please explain how a "philosophical" ground is "more solid" than a materialistic one, considering that science is supposed to be the study of the material world. To me, the main difference between science and philosophy is that science is based on actually achieving something, and that it you remove the materialism from science it ceases to achieve anything - just like philosophy.

 

[Student of X]

Even cuneiform tablets didn't invent themselves. Nor did Papyrus, paper or the printing press.

And you credit those inventions to modern Western science and all its philosophical baggage?

 

[Student of X]

Please explain how a "philosophical" ground is "more solid" than a materialistic one, considering that science is supposed to be the study of the material world. To me, the main difference between science and philosophy is that science is based on actually achieving something, and that it you remove the materialism from science it ceases to achieve anything - just like philosophy.

Yes, science is supposed to be the study of the "material world". People figure that if the material world wasn't "real", then science wouldn't be able to give us all these neat technological toys.

Pfft.

So what would you say if it turns out that there is an "immaterial world" that science also works on, without explicitly telling you, thus allowing you to believe and maybe even encouraging you to believe that the "material world" is the only "real world"? Would you be concerned?

 

[cablescavenger]

And you credit those inventions to modern Western science and all its philosophical baggage?

No. I credit them to science, that endeavour you are slating which you readily accept into your life; evidenced by your appearance on this forum.

 

[Student of X]

No. I credit them to science, that endeavour you are slating which you readily accept into your life; evidenced by your appearance on this forum.

Is there anything you DON'T credit to science?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, science is supposed to be the study of the "material world". People figure that if the material world wasn't "real", then science wouldn't be able to give us all these neat technological toys.

Every assumption that we make on fundamentally based on the assumption that the world we perceive and exist inside of is real. If we start from the basis that reality isn't real, we can't really do, achieve or even observe anything of any merit whatsoever.

As for "technological toys", I wouldn't exactly call modern medicine, transport, agriculture and information processing "technological toys".

Pfft.

So what would you say if it turns out that there is an "immaterial world" that science also works on, without explicitly telling you, thus allowing you to believe and maybe even encouraging you to believe that the "material world" is the only "real world"?Would you be concerned?

I'd be surprised, but I'd live with it. And until we have any reason whatsoever to conclude that the physical world is not the "real world" or that there exists anything akin to an "immaterial world", such an assumption is not only baseless but entirely meaningless, aimless and stupid, as explained above.

 

[Sunstone]

If you trace it back, science ultimately gets its start about 2500 years ago with the assertion by some Greek philosophers -- such as Thales and Heraclitus -- that nature can be explained in natural terms without resort to supernatural explanations. That was certainly the beginning of philosophy, and, ultimately, the beginning of science too.

Those early philosophers were mostly monists. That is, they believed natural phenomenon could ultimately be reduced to just one substance, such as water or fire. But their monism was incidental to the real basis of philosophy and science. That basis is natural explanation, rather than supernatural explanation. And you can have natural explanation with or without monism.