How to answer this objection that completely defending today's science?

[Nivsch]

I received a response to my post and I dont know how to answer it.

My post on facebook talked about the black hole effect and was aimed to the point that somebody awakes from the modern science that although save lives, yet only worsen and increases chronic physcial and mental illnesses, and he starts to see the whole system and us as a complete biological system, and to reconnect to nature and use natural methods to help himself to heal. Then he comes back to his friends from college and they say to him "That is not scientific. prove it!". I wrote it to show my facebook friends the problem with science today and the matrix we are living it.

But I got this response and I am struggling to find how to answer it well:

" In principle, there are many scientific fields that based on subjective feeling of people. The scientific part in those studies is the statistics. Of course we need to isolate parameters and to prove causality. Intuition is a great tool to start with, but science gives you tools to prove that your intuition is right (and there are many tools in science to prove with).

I think that you are mixing here couple of un-connected things. Indeed usually a research is focused on the micro, but doesn't underestimate the macro. "

It sounds to me from what she wrote, that science today is just wonderful and there is no problem at all. thats the feeling I got from her answer.

What do you think I can answer to address this?

Edited November 4, 2020 by Nivsch

[Gesundheit]

@Nivsch She's a materialist, but she's open to anecdotal evidence unlike most materialists, so that's one point for her. What she's missing is the understanding that life is a dream and that science is just a tool that appears to be working inside the dream. Also, she's mixing up her understanding of scientific research motivation with the non-materialistic understanding of how science works. She thinks that intuition is a good motivation for a scientist, and that it's a reasonable place to start the research from. But that's not what Leo is saying. Leo is not saying that you should follow your intuition and prove whether it's right or wrong through the current scientific method. He's saying something more nuanced than that. But for her to get that she'd have to study a little bit of epistemology with an open mind. She seems quite open-minded though, so I think she will not find much trouble. Btw, do you have any idea how old she is?

[Leo Gura]

Step #1: Stop listening to humans on Facebook.

Step #2: Stop listening to humans.

Step #3: Realize that you're not a human

[Rilles]

Its easy to parade science as if its open-minded but in reality its not! What someone writes on facebook might sound great, but is that how science actually goes about its business? no. 

[Nahm]

@Nivsch

The misnomer is at the very foundation of the inquiry. “Today’s science” can not really be attributed to in the manor you believe, because it is only subjective connotation and opinion. Ironically perhaps, a scientific approach of inspecting direct experience reveals this. Scientists, on the other hand so to speak, are woke & plentiful. Just be more choosy with who & what you’re putting n front of you. YouTube wise, check out PBS Space Time. Look to feeling, the vibrational nature of reality which scientists study. Notice when you first make a devil, and then focus on wanted, people feel your inner discord intuitively, even if they are not cognitively aware of this. Feeling is always first. This is inescapable. Thank God. 

“No one cares what you know until they know that you care!”
― Benjamin Franklin

[JosephKnecht]

17 hours ago, Nivsch said:

In principle, there are many scientific fields that based on subjective feeling of people.

Science is an attempt to create objective truth out of subjective experiences. In the end, you can't have an object without a subject and vice versa.

17 hours ago, Nivsch said:

The scientific part in those studies is the statistics.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

17 hours ago, Nivsch said:

Of course we need to isolate parameters and to prove causality.

Science narrows down the variables of causality and in this way it limits itself. Science can only explore how few variables affect another variable, but it could never explain everything. Ask a scientist what caused everything to come to existence and they can't give you an answer because everything can't be isolated. In that sense, Science isolates itself from understanding the primal cause.

17 hours ago, Nivsch said:

Intuition is a great tool to start with, but science gives you tools to prove that your intuition is right (and there are many tools in science to prove with).

 What is right? It is simply a validation by others of your subjective experience. If one day you see a ghost, and your intuition is telling you that ghosts exist, how would you prove to a scientist that your intuition is right? 

[Nivsch]

@Gesundheit she is around my age. I'm 33 and she has learned earth sciences with me.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Nivsch

[Ethos]

Those studies who use statistics doesn't take the whole world population. Like spiral dinamics or the 9 levels of cognitive development, they couldn't possibly survey all the world. So they take a fragment of reality to interpret the whole, which is of course, the weakness of statistics. It's never the whole truth. And this "Objective" part it's just "Well, it's not perfect por it's better than nothing" kind of truth. 

Of course, it's the intuition again that comes in play when you interpret the results of these statistics, like the studies I cited again before. You can tell it takes an impressive amount of openness to write these results in the way they are writen, which says something about the researchers: Obviously open minded. When a Closed minded person would say, "this is bullshit" and dismiss the whole study.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Ethos