Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[ImmortalFlame]

Technology isn't the fruit of science. It's the fruit of consciousness.

So, anything that is conscious can develop technology? The scientific method has no role to play whatsoever?

Technology can be developed whether or not we swallow the whole science narrative and salute the materialist creed.

You still don't seem to understand that science is a methodology, not a "narrative" or a "materialist creed". Until you do away with this pretentious and juvenile notions, you can't really hope to have a thorough grasp of the concepts involved.

 

[blackout]

So, anything that is conscious can develop technology? The scientific method has no role to play whatsoever?


You still don't seem to understand that science is a methodology, not a "narrative" or a "materialist creed". Until you do away with this pretentious and juvenile notions, you can't really hope to have a thorough grasp of the concepts involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't technology in general been the result of invention?
For example the light bulb.
How many years worth of materials were tried before a working filament was found?
This was nothing more really, than ultra VIGILANT trial and error,
carried out in 'light' of a Vision... and a Belief... that SOMETHING would work.
(the Vision and Belief of One man)

The 'science' part came later.
The 'science' of the working light bulb
cannot be, until there actually IS, a working lightbulb.
(to observe)
It was Edison's belief (and persistence) that brought it into being.

First came the Vision (through consciousness),
then came the 'invention' (through trial and error)
then lastly came the explanation (or the science of the electric light)

All of which, together, LARGELY upped everyone's ability to see (and enVision) in general.

(General Electric?)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't technology in general been the result of invention?
For example the light bulb.
How many years worth of materials were tried before a working filament was found?
This was nothing more really, than ultra VIGILANT trial and error,
carried out in 'light' of a Vision... and a Belief... that SOMETHING would work.
(the Vision and Belief of One man)

The 'science' part came later.
The 'science' of the working light bulb
cannot be, until there actually IS, a working lightbulb.
(to observe)
It was Edison's belief (and persistence) that brought it into being.

... Through science.

Beliefs don't make things. If that were so, people would have illuminated the darkness thousands of years before Edison was born. Edison had the vision, but he also had the technology and the methodology to bring that vision to reality. Without his understanding and application of science, Edison wouldn't have achieved anything.

First came the Vision (through consciousness),

then came the 'invention' (through trial and error)
then lastly came the explanation (or the science of the electric light)

All of which, together, LARGELY upped everyone's ability to see (and enVision) in general.

(General Electric?)

Every invention starts with an idea - but it's not the idea that gets an invention out of the brain and into reality. That's what science does. I don't believe I said anything that contradicts that.

 

[blackout]

[/color][/b]
... Through science.

Beliefs don't make things. If that were so, people would have illuminated the darkness thousands of years before Edison was born. Edison had the vision, but he also had the technology and the methodology to bring that vision to reality. Without his understanding and application of science, Edison wouldn't have achieved anything.


Every invention starts with an idea - but it's not the idea that gets an invention out of the brain and into reality. That's what science does. I don't believe I said anything that contradicts that.

But Edison didn't 'have' the technology of the electric lightbulb.
He tinkered relentlessly until he found something that worked. no?

He previously had no actual evidence that his vision would work.
He believed in his vision enough to do what was crazy enough
to prove to himself and everyone else
that he was right.

Without profound belief in his (otherwise unprovable) vision
he never would have persisted his way to success.

 

[Student of X]

Monism and science dont contradict each other.

Science more or less assumes material monism is true and then proceeds. If it wants to be compatible with mental or neutral monism it needs to change the rules to accommodate consciousness, instead of trying to reduce it to mere illusion to make it fit its obsolete philosophy. As long as science assumes material monism, it will only be able to weave a narrative compatible with that basic philosophical assumption, even though that assumption is false.

It then has to preserve its house-of-cards by damning all facts that are incompatible with material monism and it has to excommunicate the 'pseudoscientists' who study the anomalies that science can't accommodate with its current paradigm. Facts such as psi. That's part of the reason why I think science kinda sucks.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But Edison didn't 'have' the technology of the electric lightbulb.
He tinkered relentlessly until he found something that worked. no?

You're saying he just found random objects and mashed them together, or do you think he played around with, say, electric coils, filaments and other technologies? He clearly had the technology for the lightbulb otherwise he woudn't have been able to invent it - the technology existed at the time, he was just the first to "crack the formula" so to speak. He didn't just randomly keep trying things until it worked. He used his extensive scientific knowledge combined with the many years of research in the field of electronics put in before him by scientists such as Joseph Swan.

He previously had no actual evidence that his vision would work.

He believed in his vision enough to do what was crazy enough
to prove to himself and everyone else
that he was right.

Without profound belief in his (otherwise unprovable) vision
he never would have persisted his way to success.

But it wasn't his persistance or his belief alone which lead to success. He employed the scientific methodology. That's what the made the difference between a guy with a dream and a guy achieving that dream.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science more or less assumes material monism is true and then proceeds. If it wants to be compatible with mental or neutral monism it needs to change the rules to accommodate consciousness, instead of trying to reduce it to mere illusion to make it fit its obsolete philosophy. As long as science assumes material monism, it will only be able to weave a narrative compatible with that basic philosophical assumption, even though that assumption is false.

It then has to preserve its house-of-cards by damning all facts that are incompatible with material monism and it has to excommunicate the 'pseudoscientists' who study the anomalies that science can't accommodate with its current paradigm. Facts such as psi. That's part of the reason why I think science kinda sucks.

Number one: Science is not a philosophy, it is a methodology.

Number two: Can you present any compelling evidence whatsoever that "psi" actually does exist (without just copy-pasting a few paragraphs of text from some random guy's blog) and that science should take account of it?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me all the things we understand better about our universe through the application of mysticism.

*crickets*

-Nato

 

[Quiddity]

Number one: Science is not a philosophy, it is a methodology.

Number two: Can you present any compelling evidence whatsoever that "psi" actually does exist (without just copy-pasting a few paragraphs of text from some random guy's blog) and that science should take account of it?

Science most certainly does involve philosophy. This does nothing to undermine the method itself.

 

[PolyHedral]

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

Of course I am. I happen to be very well-educated in magic and divination.

Or do they not count because they work?

 

[atanu]

PolyHedral, as the name suggests, is multifaceted.

 

[Orias]

Baloney.

Many (most? All?) scientists have problems with the general quality of science journalism.

The media can be an aggravating thing.

But then again, all science is political.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't like it when a scientist is given undue credibility for statements outside his or her area of expertise.

Like Dawkins.

I agree with you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is a tool and it's proven itself highly effective for improving our understanding of the material world and providing the technology and knowledge to better enjoy life.

I agree with you. Science is a beneficial tool evolved by joint efforts of humanity, be they theists or atheists.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Correct