What's wrong with science?

[Conscientious Anon]

@RedLine if science is a mere language then how come we've come this far in our human progress due to science? Plus science is also about experiments and using tangible methods to explain all phenomena. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Conscientious Anon
Correction

[RedLine]

1 minute ago, Conscientious Anon said:

@RedLine if science is a mere language then how come we've come this far in our human progress due to science? 

Science is a tool to opearte in reality. You can´t get Meaning from it. 

 

1 minute ago, Conscientious Anon said:

@RedLine Plus science is also about experiments and using tangible methods to explain all phenomena. 

So what

[Conscientious Anon]

4 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Science will teach about things within the dream but not beyond it

You're not gonna figure out what is generating the dream by studying objects inside the dream

Science does not recognize reality as a dream because such view cannot be scientifically proven or at least has not been tested or measured. So this will remain mere speculations and hypothesises until scientifically proven otherwise.

 

9 minutes ago, Osaid said:

What's the difference? 

If you're gonna say it's all one then there's no difference. The words serve no function in that sense except if used to highlight the mundane difference. 

[Conscientious Anon]

10 minutes ago, RedLine said:

Science is a tool to opearte in reality. You can't get Meaning from it.

@RedLine It is the best we have. I cannot emphasize this enough because some of you seem to be denigrating science and taking it for granted. Science has been a major turning point in our human evolution. Just go back in history and see how humans lived before science and then compare that to how we're living now. It's like night and day difference. 

[RedLine]

7 minutes ago, Conscientious Anon said:

@RedLine It is the best we have. I cannot emphasize this enough because some of you seem to be denigrating science and taking it for granted. Science has been a major turning point in our human evolution. Just go back in history and see how humans lived before science and then compare that to how we're living now. It's like night and day difference. 

The best we have is God, not science.

And you take for granted that the greatest technique and material conditions the greatest happiness. Totally wrong. 

I don´t denigrate science. It is useful but doesn´t lead to Truth.

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by RedLine

[Osaid]

 

30 minutes ago, Conscientious Anon said:

Science does not recognize reality as a dream because such view cannot be scientifically proven or at least has not been tested or measured.

Yes, exactly. It won't be recognized because scientists will look within the dream and not beyond it, like I said before.

How do you quantify and measure evidence that reality is a dream from within the dream? Impossible. This is how science limits itself.

They expect reality to provide evidence for everything. Truth is prior to any scientific proof or evidence,

Edited August 11, 2020 by Osaid

[Jacob Morres]

science is good and important and lots of great things have come from it. but the danger with it is that it can become a paradigm lock when you can't think outside of it and it's used to dictate what is true/false in your world view aka things within science are credible, things outside of science are not. everything within science becomes their world view and they are not able to be open-minded to things that science doesn't approve of because they believe that science holds the upmost experts in the world...

you know mainstream body of science discredited psychedelics 10 years ago? now it's been rated the the breakthrough therapy for the past 2 years. yet if someone outside of science was advocating the amazing healing potential of psychedelics, and you pushed it aside saying it's "alternative medicine" and not proven by science, you will be slow in your understanding of reality, because science was slow to catch up. even though traditions have been using psychedelics for healing for thousands of years

what if science is slow on some topics? hasn't been wrong many times before? we can't use it as the absolute truth. we need to be open-minded to things outside of science. 

imagine being a scientifically minded person repeating facts from science 100 years ago. people would look at you like a cook. or the people from 100 years ago looking at people from 1820 etc.science is a process of evolution and not fact

and oftentimes people who challenge the mainstream paradigm don't get looked at seriously for decades. like einstein, mendel, galileo, darwin, rutherford etc. (see: Thomas Kuhn's the structure of scientific revolutions) 

so it's also important to look at people/experts/scientists who challenge a mainstream scientific perspective. because sometimes even when n = 10000 scientists, it's still wrong, because of the n=1 person who is actually right

topics like... meditation (only several years ago was it finally taken seriously by science), MBTI & enneagram, negative effects of smoking. scientific evidence of nutrition has only been started to be studied relatively recently. but it's always been extremely powerful and tons of people have great information of nutrition that they've gathered from their own independent study

mainstream science is also slow to adopt on developmental models. things like spiral dynamics, cook-greuter's ego developmental model, ken wilber's developmental model, maslow's hierarchy atc. 

things like the effectiveness of PUA/game, self-esteem work, stoicism, law of attraction, confidence  and thousands of personal developmental tools which are all extremely powerful, useful (and not placebo lol) and work great aren't being used in mainstream science. 

it also discredits intuition, analogies, throws many things into a alternative medicine box (which usually get overturned after long times by science) 

science is also slow to overturn on a belief in its philosophy. people like einstein, mendel, galileo, darwin, rutherford had to tackle and challenge the mainstream scientific perspective and it takes decades to get approval. even though it was true and right all along. 

regarding enlightenment, which is a much more challenging topic... that you need proof to prove enlightenment truths is very difficult because these truths are only able to found with hundreds to thousands of hours of deep meditation/yoga, psychedelics, and a profound radical open-mindedness to question pre-existing philosophies of the world that you hold and are contrary to what science believes in.

it's very important to question science, scientists. because remember like everything science is telling you is all 2nd hand information!! you are just reading a paper/listening to a scientist(s) and all you can do is take it on blind faith! you don't know how credible or real it is. and entire bodies of science have been wrong about subjects and it often takes decades before a mainstream body of science overturn, even when there is adequate research from a scientist/person that disproves the norm of science. 

science is also very useful!! science has tons of studies that you can use to test in your direct experience. like for example, if you hear from science that the optimal study time is XYZ. but you hear from a personal productivity guru is actually XYZ. and the personal productivity guru's philosophy has had more potential in your life with you and your friends than the one that science gave you, what does that tell you? it at the very least with your own direct experience, shows you that the thing you tested though it was not in science, it worked better than what was in science

many important studies and technologies have come from mainstream science and science has helped tons of people. 

but also consider that science is still a baby in many areas and is imperfect!! consider that scientific advancement has only begun and has lots to improve.  

p.s. i used to be an r/science and r/atheist fanatic. i was a radical scientifically minded atheist 4-5 years ago but i came to learn that i can't limit myself to science and that i was very close-minded and dogmatic to things that outside of science because it wasn't "scientifically proven". but of course, [the mainstream body of] science can be and is wrong in many areas. 

mainstream science does not always have the cutting edge knowledge and you need to do your own independent study, look to people outside of science in many cases. otherwise you won't ever have the cutting edge 

Science is 2nd hand knowledge (from your POV), tons of credible things exist within and also outside of science, science is imperfect and has made tons of mistakes (it does auto-correct but it can sometimes take decades and even centuries) and you will need to look outside of science in many cases if you want the cutting edge because it is slow to catch up in many topics 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Jacob Morres

[Artsu]

1 hour ago, Conscientious Anon said:

I mean that he was the same God that the bible spoke of and in the name of. 

No, Jesus is not God. It is blasphemy to say that he is.

[Artsu]

1 hour ago, Conscientious Anon said:

@RedLine It is the best we have. I cannot emphasize this enough because some of you seem to be denigrating science and taking it for granted. Science has been a major turning point in our human evolution. Just go back in history and see how humans lived before science and then compare that to how we're living now. It's like night and day difference. 

The environment is on the verge of collapsing.

Yep, night and day.

[Jacobsrw]

5 hours ago, Conscientious Anon said:

Science is the best tool we have to understand reality and solve the mysteries of the universe. I don't understand why it seems like such a sore spot with Leo. Science represents the peak of humanity's evolution. It cannot be compared to religion which is based on myths and legends that aren't true. 

Consciousness is the most fundamental tool for anything, since without it you wouldn’t even know of a reality.

Also, consider that science is not so much the problem but the way in which scientists tend to use it. Scientists use science as a materialistic presupposition. Science can be used for higher order hypotheses and experimentation (such as metaphysics). However, scientists fail to see the value in this area and just further entrench themselves into more dualistic dogmas.

Once science can be used more nuanced and with open mindedness, then science will become a far better tool.

 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Conscientious Anon said:

@dflores321

Why do you call it a worldview? If you were talking about idealism then that would be a correct example of a worldview, but materialism is just what is. It's not a worldview. I'm not using any philosophical configuration inside my head to perceive the outside world. All is material stuff. 

Either you're trolling or you're very lost here.

You're not gonna last long on this forum unless you open your mind.

[Quader]

4 hours ago, Conscientious Anon said:

@RedLine It is the best we have. I cannot emphasize this enough because some of you seem to be denigrating science and taking it for granted. Science has been a major turning point in our human evolution. Just go back in history and see how humans lived before science and then compare that to how we're living now. It's like night and day difference. 

You are taking sprit and mysticism for granted by denying it as part of the definition of science. When science is spoken of from a materialism point of view, it appears that science can only be performed by what is already current known sciences. Again this discredits what has not yet been determined by "current science" as also being invalid. This is not a solid foundation to validate "mainstream science" over other forms of invalidated/unproven-by-mainstream-science sciences so to speak. Just because science is unable to measure or understand something doesn't mean it's useless to try to denote it in some way. After all, duality is unlimited too. 

[Mu_]

17 hours ago, Conscientious Anon said:

Science is the best tool we have to understand reality and solve the mysteries of the universe. I don't understand why it seems like such a sore spot with Leo. Science represents the peak of humanity's evolution. It cannot be compared to religion which is based on myths and legends that aren't true. 

I honestly like science and think its useful.  However what scientific model of proof are you using to prove that religion (or spirituality if your lumping the two) is not as useful as science?  According to who and what measurements that are objectively verifiable and defined that you proved such a statement?  Sure I respect an individual opinion saying such, but to make scientific claims we need objective facts.

[Rilles]

•Its arrogant towards religion, spirituality and philosophy

•It believes there is an objective reality

•It handwaves the "beginning" of the universe

•It says psychedelics are just brain phenomenen while ignoring the fact that everything has to be some sort of brain phenomenen if thats the case

•It gave rise to silly ideas like Darwinism

•Ignoring spirituality it tends to make life seem hollow and hedonistic

 

 

I could go on...

[RedLine]

1 minute ago, Rilles said:

•Its arrogant towards religion, spirituality and philosophy

•It believes there is an objective reality

•It handwaves the "beginning" of the universe

•It says psychedelics are just brain phenomenen while ignoring the fact that everything has to be some sort of brain phenomenen if thats the case

•It gave rise to silly ideas like Darwinism

•Ignoring spirituality it tends to make life seem hollow and hedonistic

 

 

I could go on...

haha good points

 

Excep for Darwinism, what is wrong with it?

[Rilles]

3 minutes ago, RedLine said:

haha good points

 

Excep for Darwinism, what is wrong with it?

Sorry, shouldve clarified, the idea that society is cold, survival of the fittest, that were just biological machines etc

It also tends to feel attacked when you mention that evolution could be intelligent since it automatically assumes youre coming from a Stage Blue approach when bringing it up, im not saying Yahweh made the earth in 7 days, know what i mean

Edited August 11, 2020 by Rilles

[RedLine]

5 minutes ago, Rilles said:

Sorry, shouldve clarified, the idea that society is cold, survival of the fittest, etc

Ok, I guess you mean form an ethic or an aesthetic around Darwinism. So if you form an ehtic that is not biology anymore, you are dealing with other stuff that is not sciences.

 

The problem is that Science does not exist, sciences exists (individual sciences), what they called science is a religion. They make mistakes when they go beyong their field.

Edited August 11, 2020 by RedLine

[Rilles]

6 minutes ago, RedLine said:

Ok, I guess you mean form an ethic or an aesthetic around Darwinism. So if you form an ehtic that is not biology anymore, you are dealing with other stuff that is not sciences.

Exactly, and then ignoring any contrary evidence to your preferred ideology, nature is not just survival of the fittest, what about hives and herds that care for one another...?

The problem is that Science does not exist, sciences exists (individual sciences), what they called science is a religion. They make mistakes when they go beyong their field.

Agreed, I like Science but I dont like the New Atheism type of Science that forms an identity around reacting to religion. I did that too when I was a teenager but luckily I grew out of it. 

 

[smurf88]

As a person heavily invested in both science and spirituality, I consider both equally important. In fact they are quite similar - One is the investigation of the physical world, and the other is the investigation of the subjective world. (Whether or not there is actually a separation between the two is another topic.)
I would argue that having one without the other forms an incomplete picture.

The only real problem I have with science (and religion, and any other sort of human grouping) is the tendency to block new ideas. You could see this take place numerous times throughout human history - notable examples being Copernicus and Semmelweis. Of course you have to draw a line somewhere to keep from wasting time, but in the present situation, that happens to be a line drawn by ideas that can get funding.

Luckily, there are enough ways to learn and enjoy science without the need for politics.

 

Buddhabrot, the result of a special Mandelbrot rendering technique.

Edited August 11, 2020 by smurf88

[Conscientious Anon]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Either you're trolling or you're very lost here.

You're not gonna last long on this forum unless you open your mind.

@Leo Gura Wtf?! I can't believe you actually said that. My mind is so open that I literally think you're the one that's being close-minded about what I have to say. I am being a contrarian to provoke others into validating their attitude toward science. I know I am saying foolish things and I am aware that could come across as trolling. That is the bait to get people to give a piece of their minds.