Leo Gura

Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

304 posts in this topic

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You're in luck cause it looks like there's gonna be 4 parts.

Discovery Channel has shark week.

Actualized channel will have science month.

;)

Looking forward to it. I've seen Science abused by ignorant devils on both sides for a long time. About time you abuse Science the proper way.

Edited by Extreme Z7

Always Be Hardcore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mavelezm said:

Is there any field in science that is not driven by egos agenda? Can we trust science?

Spirituality and religion has never been misused by egos?


"No teaching, no teacher, no student." - Papaji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • You said you used to be a pretty "scientifically minded" guy. So how did you first come to realize the limitations of science?
  • Do you think quantum mechanics have limitations too?
  • Mysticism vs science? What are the aspects mysticism has that science doesn't?
  •  
Edited by Ook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 8:14 AM, Leo Gura said:

I'm particularly interested in collecting any counter-critiques of my critiques of science. Tell me any way you think I'm wrong about science. Obviously you'd have to see my videos first to have counter-critiques, but maybe you have some based on my older videos.

Keep in mind that any critique which does not offer an alternative is not a good critique. If you are throwing science out of the window, you should also propose something that in the future can replace science or evolve it to the next level. If science is gone, something should fill the vacuum. Otherwise, we regress back to subjective mythological stories of the past. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to bash science on the internet:

1) Go to device with nanoscale CPU that utilises quantum mechanics for manufacture and silicon semiconductor chemistry to function

2) Connect to A/C electricity as invented by Nikola Tesla

3) Switch on screen using light-emitting diode electroluminescence. 

4) Connect to vast computing infrastructure system called the internet using transceivers in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

5) Talk about how science is full of shit. Success!

@No Self 😆👌

Edited by Willie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Willie said:

How to bash science on the internet:

1) Go to device with nanoscale CPU that utilises quantum mechanics for manufacture and silicon semiconductor chemistry to function

2) Connect to A/C electricity as invented by Nikola Tesla

3) Switch on screen using light-emitting diode electroluminescence. 

4) Connect to vast computing infrastructure system called the internet using transceivers in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

5) Talk about how science is full of shit. Success!

@No Self 😆👌

Thank you :). I don't like to be too sarcastic but I hope my point is understood.

I gave this some thought and can see the danger here. There are people in the scientific community who are dismissive of spirituality, attempt to define consciousness materially, etc. Yes, those people are closed-minded and insult spiritual seekers. But you have a lot to thank them for if you like having medication rather than a witch doctor selling snake oil.

Our genetic programming pushes us towards tribalism, and makes us want to be a part of Team Spiritual and pwn Team Science. Go team! ...Well actually, no. God is ALL OF IT. And tribalism is actually the most primitive of human behaviours. Every religion has fallen for this us-vs.-them trap. Now it's our turn.

Being spiritual and arguing that you are 'better' than Team Science is every bit as unconscious as being Christian and arguing that Muslims are inferior. It doesn't matter if Team Science made fun of 'us'. Because there is no 'us' or 'them'. Only relative truth which is uncovered by authentic truth-seeking (eg. the fact that light moves faster than sound), with absolute truth being that this entire scenario is a play observed by the great consciousness.


"No teaching, no teacher, no student." - Papaji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say Science relies too much on logic and rationality, isnt religion also relying on logic albeit hyper-moralistic religious logic? Isnt logic relative to what stage of development you are?

Blue logic might be "The universe didnt come from nothing, thats illogical!" 

Orange logic: "You have never seen God therefore its on you to prove his existence"

Green logic: "Polluting the oceans will cause suffering for our future children"

 

talk about logic and rationality basically

 

 

Edited by Rilles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- How corruption in science works

- How science, culture and social systems are deeply entangled

- How systemic incentives work

- How domains of science progress differently depending on how aligned they are with profits/cultural.

- Why technology thrives while other fields do not.

- Why pharmaceuticals disproportionality thrive in the heath domain,

- The huge differences in the quality of hard sciences and soft sciences. What is causing it. 

- Why many fields of science stagnate with no progress. 

- NUTRITION "SCIENCE".

- Studies are driven by... interpreted by... 

- Why marketing, politics, education, corporations and science can all be sais in the same sentence. 

- What changes do we need to make

- What is systemic change and how will that work

- Better ways of doing science.

- Examples of good science vs bad science

- Examples of second tier science and how it would look if done today

- Misconceptions about science

- How science will evolve and what will it look like

- How science changing requires a holistic gradual solution, multi stage

- How science gets stuck

- Why science investigates somethings and ignores others

- The science tool belt

- Vegan branding and marketing

- Alternative medicine and marketing

- The Grand Bastardization of Science Conspiracy

- The Grand Model Of Science Evolution

- but leo: doctors save millions of lives every year because of science, how could...

- but leo: pharmaceuticals drugs have extended human life span, shouldn't we invest more in...

- but leo: the well established world health organization and many others have stated with 100s of studies that veganism is healthy, whats wrong with that, it must be true? 

- but leo: the paleo community has 100s of studies proving paleo is the best diet, how is this possible, it must be true right? 

- but leo: spirituality and science are 2 completely different things, why are you trying to force them to work together?

- but leo: science has already debunked spirituality (1. prove god exists. 2. prove god is imagining this. Good luck with number 1)

- but leo: science has the humility to say it doesn't know

- but leo: the government funds science and its a major reason for economic growth, science must be doing something right?

Edited by integral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the universe is in experience, then the planet>country>house>body>brain>experience is in experience, which means that in experience there is infinite regression of experience (as far as human apprehension of logic is concerned), can science as of 2020 prove this elsewise mathematical neccesary concept? Can an ideal science prove it? Ought one even strive for its proof or do we rather disregard proof as the cornerstone for relative quantification?

Alternatively do you disregard the premise of the universe inside experience or the conclusion of infinite regression?

 

If there is no brain then conclusively there is no body/universe either, can science as a neccesary *connexion between brain and universe be done if there is nothing of either? (relevant question only if one claims there is no brain)

Is ideal enacted logic itself bottlenecking human knowledge or is human bottlenecking the ideal logic (and not only the one which it usually performes).

*by connexion it is meant accidental and supplementary yet neccesary with regards to a totality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura If you're going to deconstruct science, which I welcome, I suggest you also include some proposals how science can evolve

I hope you're not just going to rant about the materialist paradigm and how all scientists are utterly deluded about what reality is and how truth is found (most scientists are deluded concerning this, but not because they're scientists).

Some scientists (though extremely few, mostly those involved in psychedelic research) know about reality and consciousness, but in mainstream science you just can show up and proclaim that consciousness and appearance is all there is (and a few other things😂).

I am currently studying biochemistry, plant physiology and bioinformatics at university and I am very eager to develop science beyond its current limits and misapprehensions (optimally with help of the use of psychedelics equivalent to Galileos use of the telescope), I just don't know yet how, therefore I'd really appreciate your take on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Tim R said:

I am currently studying biochemistry, plant physiology and bioinformatics at university and I am very eager to develop science beyond its current limits and misapprehensions (optimally with help of the use of psychedelics equivalent to Galileos use of the telescope), I just don't know yet how, therefore I'd really appreciate your take on this. 

Talks alot about the juicy science in the yellow vid, skipped to 20:00 where he talks about how the interesting stuff in science is happening in the intersection between fields. Would recommend watching the entire video, its all science basically. 

Edited by integral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 8:14 AM, Leo Gura said:

I'm particularly interested in collecting any counter-critiques of my critiques of science. Tell me any way you think I'm wrong about science. Obviously you'd have to see my videos first to have counter-critiques, but maybe you have some based on my older videos.

I'm not sure it's obvious actually. I've not seen these videos but I've heard rather clever folks being critical of science and it seems to always come down to people confusing a philosophical assumption or an ideology prevailing among particular groups of scientists with science or simply to confusing scientism with science. If you think you are special and that your critiques are actually relevant to science, maybe start by explaining very carefully what the object of your critiques is in order to avoid the misunderstandings which seem to plague most (if not all) discussions of this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That'd be a cool video, thanks for your hard work. I'd love to hear what you think about pure math as well.

No question here, just thoughts:

There's a difference between science and scientism. Scientism is a materialistic ideology that claims that science has  everything figured basically. While science is a method that heavily relies on materialistic measurements  to make predictions and define things in terms of other things mathematically, it is NOT for understanding reality, it's for predicting it.

Most scientists are dogmatic about scientism. Science is great but the fact that it relies on materialism makes it limited, but still, it's VERY useful.

Edited by myname

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Leo, a critique of your previous expressions related to science:

I think it's important to remember and recognize and acknowledge that many scientists are in fact enlightened; and to give respect to those scientists, instead of belittling their vocation under the umbrella of all scientists. As I see it, an enlightened scientists becomes enlightened, of course, and then chooses to continue deconstructing reality in a scientific way out of curiosity or passion and the like. I have met these kinds of scientists, and they do in fact identify as scientists, but many of your critiques of science would not apply to them. However, they may still feel critiqued if you refer to your critiques as related to "science" and "scientists" in general.

Just something to consider :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Has science turned to  a mechanism to keep us from our authentic selves ? And how do we use science in a way that’s less harmful ?
  • Is it possible to live on earth without having to rely on science  ?
  • Is science, counter to our beliefs  of its good merits, actually is harmful for humans’ coexistence with life on this planet and nature? 

 

I herd this in one of Terrence McKenna talks and it blow me away: Physics rely manly on a set of laws to provide a proof for what it calms. while mathematics is very intuitive, and it’s capable of providing a proof without having you believe in a law that says  1+1=2 is set in stone, meaning that anyone could drive it for themselves.

Thought this way pretty fascinating and worth mentioning in this series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case this hasn't been mentioned:

  • How is language related to science?
  • How does language limit science?
  • Science and the implicit (as in explicit vs implicit understanding)

 


Miracle:    Impossible from an old understanding of reality, but possible from a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m a materialist. I don’t buy into your view that consciousness is god. I argue that each person has their own consciousness, and we are separate from each other. This comes from the observation of others, including animals, and observing evidence of a conscious being. Yet I cannot become aware of their awareness, I can only become aware of my own experience. If you believe you can do such a thing, I say it is the mind generating hallucination, or belief in a meta-narrative that’s being projected onto reality.
 

Reality as it is cannot be experienced by me. I can only perceive it with my senses. I experience an interpretation of reality. And it’s safe to assume reality is out there, independent of the narratives I project onto it.

 

 My criticisms of science are mostly that it doesn’t make intuitive sense. I’m rather basic in that way. I don’t care to learn all about physics because it’s theory and conjecture. We can’t know reality, we can only interpret a biased experience.

I try not to let metaphysical assumptions cloud my behavior. Science and spirituality are both metaphysical assumptions. I try to live life as awareness alone. It’ll take me years to awaken to that. I’m pretty unconscious (autopilot). I do allow myself to hold beliefs, I find you need to assume eating is right on some basic level in order to eat. Assumptions about the universe are necessary in that way.

But I don’t have the patience nor interest in physics to learn it. So I marvel at what physics says but don’t believe it to be true. There is no need for me to believe in general relativity or quantum mechanics to function in my day to day life. As such, I view physics as playing with assumptions and belief. I’m not personally interested in such a game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I studied a little physics/science and understood stoichiometry quite well.  I've done lab experiments that bear out the results of mathematical chemical equations.  So getting back to @kai0's question - why does it appear that reality is consistent - surely they have something right?  
 

I guess it's all relative depending on which perspective we are looking at it from - a human one; a somewhat elightened one; an aspirationally enlightened one or totally enlightened one (and all the infinite perspectives in between).

Edited by sandimay
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, as a separate issue, I lost interest in science when the study of gases became the study of an "Ideal Gas" - when it was freely admitted there is no such thing.  Also, the weights given to subatomic particles have many decimal places - but we can stop at say 3 decimal places for computational reasons.  There is a huge difference between what is a science fact and what is a science theory and this is something that is not even talked about by mainstream science (not that I am saying that science is actually factual).  They don't even admit that they are working foundationally from a theory in the first place.

Edited by sandimay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now