I understand the science rant now.

[Stick]

As usual I was reading the blog and as usual it was about science and scientist.
I was like well whatever lets get this over with I already know all these stuff.
But today as I was reading the science rants again, I started to feel a different vibe. 
It grew deeper and deeper and in a couple of seconds, I had this sudden epiphany of how openly wrong science is.

Scientists have invented a paradigm they themselves dont follow. They are supposed to back everything up with evidence yet ignore the most evident thing of all!
GOD is the most fundamental axiom. It is more rudimentary than the axiom of equality (if a=b and b=c then a=c).
can you prove the equality axiom?? well it must be false then. the greatest 99 percent of phd holders dont believe in the a=c axiom so its statistically false.
Science is just a circle jerk that produces some result because it can be partially applied to some aspects of reality. It is not the truth.
Hahaha I had no idea I was still so deeply a believer of science before this realization.
"I can't see any evidence of god so it must not exist"
Meanwhile god is right in front of your eyes laughing at your silly ass.

[Leo Gura]

Well, Hallelujah.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

Science don't exist at all. Realize it's all a fantasy like religion. 

It's hard to get off the water. 

Experience is louder than talk.

Science is a bunch of schizo following signs

[Yimpa]

The highest truths cannot be discovered through a group consensus in a controlled setting, in the human domain.  It’s gotta come directly from God/Love/Truth. 

https://youtu.be/XK_p6F5hFmU?is=j_-2jqaxjMmZbxIw

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Yimpa

[Carl-Richard]

51% of scientists believe in God and/or an universal spirit or higher power.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

"But scientist doopid" 😛

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

Prove something in science wrong. You literally win a million dollars. Do it, do it....

Theory of evolution

Theory of gravity

Cell Theory 

.....

Science is epistemology

 

Quote

Scientia comes from the present participle of scire. Some linguists theorize the ultimate root verb meant "to cut" or "to split" (akin to a pair of scissors), implying that knowing requires "cutting through" or discerning the differences between ideas.

 

Quote

its core, epistemologists attempt to unpack what it actually means to "know" something. Going back to the time of Plato, traditional theory holds that knowledge is Justified True Belief (JTB). For a claim to count as knowledge, three conditions must be met:

Belief: You must actually believe the proposition is true.

Truth: The proposition must align with reality.

Justification: You must have a rational, valid reason or evidence to support your belief.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

There is a pre-trans way of critiquing science, as with anything. Both pre-trans with respect to your own knowledge of the topic and also the people you're labelling as supposedly stupid. 

Many people think all religious people are stupid. Yet you'll discover there are smart religious people and that it's more that stupid people are stupid. That can come from deepening your understanding of religion or just finding people who are not "stupid" and are religious. You can also find stupid atheists, as well as smart ones.

Same with science. It's easy to label all scientists as stupid once you get a taste of something else. But then you might discover that there are scientists who share your understanding and that those who seem stupid are stupid people in those clothes. "Scientist" in the sense of "scientism" is not the same as "scientist" in the sense of "scientist". Just like a religious person is not the same as a dogmatic literalist fundamentalist who knows no alternative.

Try asking what Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, Michael Levin, Rupert Sheldrake, think are the limitations of science. They are scientists, yet I will confidently bet they will give an answer that is not just on par but 10x better than Leo. If you don't know something deeply, you don't know its full limitations. You can be blind to it by immersion, of course, but even granting that, these people I listed I will bet you a lot of money dwarf Leo despite that.

You can spend 20 years contemplating what are the limitations of a wooden structure like the Kon-Tiki and you will miss all the knowledge you'll only get from sailing it across the Pacific, or heck simply getting an education as a carpenter that can build it.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard