Why science must eventually reform
- Thread starter lifegazer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eventually must reform science
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
It was all part of his "great experiment"...
Come here and check if we still don't buy his ideas. See? Just as predicted, we still don't. Why? Because we are detached from God and lost within our own individualities...
It works!
It's true
Come here and check if we still don't buy his ideas. See? Just as predicted, we still don't. Why? Because we are detached from God and lost within our own individualities...
It works!
It's true
It's so simple. Let's see...
'Humanity' (which is the label we identify with after experiencing ourselves... and therefore a subjective/unreal observation & label of the self), experiences a world/universe (including other separate entities) solely and directly through ordered sensations.
*** In other words, the self and the sensations that It has, are the only reality which rationale (philosophy/logic) can identify as being real. ***
... Or, the world which we sense, is not a world in and of itself.
This is basic philosophy and I want to progress beyond debating this. A sensory representation of a world/universe is clearly not a world/universe in and of itself.
If you cannot accept this, at this stage, then you have no business involving yourself in this discussion except to purposely disrupt it for reasons that cannot be equated to 'sincerity'.
... Given that we can only confirm the existence of 'The Self' (whose nature has yet to be determined - let's not assume what It is... logic should assume nothing!) and the 'experiences' that 'It' has (thoughts; feelings; sensations; etc.), then ONLY these conclusions follow:
A) The study of the order within experience should always seek to attribute the origin of that order to 'It' which experiences that sensed-order - since there is no logical basis for attributing it to anything else.
B) Given that 'science' is the label which we attribute to the study of the order within experience, then ~science~ then has a responsibility to equate 'It' with the ultimate causality of ALL that is experienced. I.e., 'It', for example, is the cause of the universe that is being experienced.
... Consequently, scientific theories which deal with the origin of the experienced-world whilst disregarding 'It', are worthless and void of all logic.
For example, theories which disregard 'It' and which consequently treat the universe as an entity in and of itself, have completely missed the point of this logic.
Unfortunately, all scientific theories regarding the origin of this [experienced] universe, do both!
C) Scientific theories which seek to attribute the origin of human experience (thoughts; sensations; feelings; etc.) to something which we observe 'in the real world' (namely: "the brain"), are completely bogus and void of all recognition of the logic that I am explaining to the readers here. Why? Because "the brain" is something which we observe within experience itself, through the sensations!
It is illogical to attribute causality of experience to something that exists within experience itself.
D) Given that science is the study of the order which exists within experience - as opposed to the study of real objects existing within real space & time - it can be proclaimed that all known scientific laws/facts relate to the experienced-world itself.
... This now simplifies Einstein's laws of relativity. In other words, we can now understand why Newtonian laws regarding real objects interacting amongst real space & time, are not [essentially] correct. Indeed, I will be so bold as to say that if what we observed was real, then Newton couldn't possibly have been proved wrong. Why not? Because if there is only ONE reality "out there", then either we all experience it, or nobody does.
E) Quantum physics. Don't want to go into the details here, yet. Just want to say a few things:-
(i) Whatever we observe, does not emerge from 'nothing', but from 'It'!!!!!!!!!! (exclamations deserving of emphasis until science proves that whatever it is that we are, is 'nothing').
Anyone who says that they've never heard of the scientific community speaking of particles emerging from 'nothing', is either a liar, or haven't payed enough attention.
(ii) String theories, etc., are borne of a bias already discussed.
What happens when you look beyond 'It' to find the ultimate causality of it all, using mathematics? ...
Answer: You end up talking nonsense, trying to attribute the cause of the experienced-world to a piece of string (or membrane) that exists amongst 10+ dimensions.
... Please look where science is going. It's a path that nobody can observe, based upon a reality that nobody ever did observe!!!!
And yet, such people mock the religious amongst us!
... So do I, by the way. I refuse to be religious. But do not think that believing in God requires 'faith'. It's a myth.
Science has to deal with the factual world that we know. That world, hombres, is the world of experience.
Anything else is "pseudo science".
Science is in dire need of reform because it has been corrupted by the concept that what can be observed is real in and of itself.
That's the bottom line.
Reform is required and will eventually occur.
And I do not require the acceptance of this biased forum for that event to take place.
Goodnight.
'Humanity' (which is the label we identify with after experiencing ourselves... and therefore a subjective/unreal observation & label of the self), experiences a world/universe (including other separate entities) solely and directly through ordered sensations.
*** In other words, the self and the sensations that It has, are the only reality which rationale (philosophy/logic) can identify as being real. ***
... Or, the world which we sense, is not a world in and of itself.
This is basic philosophy and I want to progress beyond debating this. A sensory representation of a world/universe is clearly not a world/universe in and of itself.
If you cannot accept this, at this stage, then you have no business involving yourself in this discussion except to purposely disrupt it for reasons that cannot be equated to 'sincerity'.
... Given that we can only confirm the existence of 'The Self' (whose nature has yet to be determined - let's not assume what It is... logic should assume nothing!) and the 'experiences' that 'It' has (thoughts; feelings; sensations; etc.), then ONLY these conclusions follow:
A) The study of the order within experience should always seek to attribute the origin of that order to 'It' which experiences that sensed-order - since there is no logical basis for attributing it to anything else.
B) Given that 'science' is the label which we attribute to the study of the order within experience, then ~science~ then has a responsibility to equate 'It' with the ultimate causality of ALL that is experienced. I.e., 'It', for example, is the cause of the universe that is being experienced.
... Consequently, scientific theories which deal with the origin of the experienced-world whilst disregarding 'It', are worthless and void of all logic.
For example, theories which disregard 'It' and which consequently treat the universe as an entity in and of itself, have completely missed the point of this logic.
Unfortunately, all scientific theories regarding the origin of this [experienced] universe, do both!
C) Scientific theories which seek to attribute the origin of human experience (thoughts; sensations; feelings; etc.) to something which we observe 'in the real world' (namely: "the brain"), are completely bogus and void of all recognition of the logic that I am explaining to the readers here. Why? Because "the brain" is something which we observe within experience itself, through the sensations!
It is illogical to attribute causality of experience to something that exists within experience itself.
D) Given that science is the study of the order which exists within experience - as opposed to the study of real objects existing within real space & time - it can be proclaimed that all known scientific laws/facts relate to the experienced-world itself.
... This now simplifies Einstein's laws of relativity. In other words, we can now understand why Newtonian laws regarding real objects interacting amongst real space & time, are not [essentially] correct. Indeed, I will be so bold as to say that if what we observed was real, then Newton couldn't possibly have been proved wrong. Why not? Because if there is only ONE reality "out there", then either we all experience it, or nobody does.
E) Quantum physics. Don't want to go into the details here, yet. Just want to say a few things:-
(i) Whatever we observe, does not emerge from 'nothing', but from 'It'!!!!!!!!!! (exclamations deserving of emphasis until science proves that whatever it is that we are, is 'nothing').
Anyone who says that they've never heard of the scientific community speaking of particles emerging from 'nothing', is either a liar, or haven't payed enough attention.
(ii) String theories, etc., are borne of a bias already discussed.
What happens when you look beyond 'It' to find the ultimate causality of it all, using mathematics? ...
Answer: You end up talking nonsense, trying to attribute the cause of the experienced-world to a piece of string (or membrane) that exists amongst 10+ dimensions.
... Please look where science is going. It's a path that nobody can observe, based upon a reality that nobody ever did observe!!!!
And yet, such people mock the religious amongst us!
... So do I, by the way. I refuse to be religious. But do not think that believing in God requires 'faith'. It's a myth.
Science has to deal with the factual world that we know. That world, hombres, is the world of experience.
Anything else is "pseudo science".
Science is in dire need of reform because it has been corrupted by the concept that what can be observed is real in and of itself.
That's the bottom line.
Reform is required and will eventually occur.
And I do not require the acceptance of this biased forum for that event to take place.
Goodnight.
Last edited:
Then don't.
So illuminating of the silliness of this thread.
And unfortunatel, I am - or at least someone got in trouble for it - not allowed to suggest the simple test for reality : if what you perceive to be reality really isn't, it is perfectly safe to strp in front of a speeding truck as it is not there and, of course, neither are you (this is all a figment of my imagination or my reality - either is fine). So I wont suggest it.
And unfortunatel, I am - or at least someone got in trouble for it - not allowed to suggest the simple test for reality : if what you perceive to be reality really isn't, it is perfectly safe to strp in front of a speeding truck as it is not there and, of course, neither are you (this is all a figment of my imagination or my reality - either is fine). So I wont suggest it.
So naive.
When my experienced body (experienced-self) steps out in front of an experienced truck, the experienced truck wins the day and my experienced self ceases to participate in the experienced world.
And you think that this proves what??
Like I said, I'm looking for more in-depth discussion here.
UndercoverElephant
Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Messages
- 9,058
OK, then. I'd like to defend disjunctivism.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/perc-obj.htm
So how does the great mind of lifegazer respond to the claims of a disjunctivist? Does he even understand why its relevant? Will he even be able to figure out what disjunctivism is and whether he should be agreeing or disagreeing with it? Or will his brain derail if he tries?
Oh....and you might actually have to read the whole article if you want to be able to provide a sensible response.
Last edited:
I don't believe you. Consider me skeptical.
Therefore, many years ago, I might have been tempted to strip my clothes off and stand in the fast lane of I-395.
The problem is that I see skepticism for what it is.
Therefore, not only did I not stand naked before the eventual semi, I avoided all such.
Lets see if you report this post.
Belz...
Fiend God
Seems damn reliable to me.
No. How can you be sure the self exists ? If you take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, you must also doubt that.
But, obviously, SOMETHING exists.
And the only assumption that accounts for all observations and DOESN'T lead to solipsism is that the observed universe exists!
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
It proves that it doesn't matter whether the truck is real or whether it is not. The outcome is the same. The outcome can't be altered by experience, knowledge, belief, superstition, religious or spiritual ritual including prayer, fasting, meditating, etc. Quite simply it proves that scientific inquiry via the scientific method (empiricism) must not reform because reformation can't, by your admission, have any different outcome to its study than it has now.
We're here for you gazer, give us something to discuss.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, is still there.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
huh?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Sorry for the 2nd post but this is just driving me nuts. Dude, who exactly don't you believe? Lifegazer or Belz? If you don't believe Belz (who you are in fact replying to) then your post is incohrent because you are, IIUC, making his argument.
ETA: Oops, not Belz, fuelair.
Last edited:
Your presentation here reads like a strange and tortuous re-hash of Descartes: "I think, therefore (after a long chain of reasoning, that contains some very weak links) God is". Or in your case 'It' is. As noted previously, I would strongly recommend that you read some Popper. Or at least get Bryan Magee's excellent little book on Popper, 'Philosophy and the Real World', which can be read in a couple of hours. I think you'll find that the reform that you are asking for from science has pretty much already taken place. It is certainly no longer making your suggested 'real in and of itself' mistake. David Hume put that one to rest in 1735. Popper's presentation was simply a new answer to 'what science is', in the light of Hume's presentation of 'what it cannot be'.
BR,
Keith
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
That is very good advice. There is one flaw to your reasoning though. Lifegazer refuses to educate himself. Many of us have given him many sources including books and websites. He refuses and is somewhat contemptuous of any philosophy that doesn't come directly from him. I assume that is still his position.
In short, Lifegazer is willfully ignorant believing there is nothing for him to learn (though it is clear he has learned from his experience here, not much but some).
I'm quite familiar with Popper but not Magee. Thanks, I'll get the book. I choose not to be willfully ignorant.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Hell, maybe lifegazer is right...
For much of this post, Wowbagger will be playing the role of Devil's Advocate. Wowbagger, himself does not necessarily believe everything he says within the <devil's advocate> tags.
<devil's advocate>
You are absolutely correct, Lifegazer!! Science does indeed need to reform in exactly the ways you describe!! Hey, perhaps we can jump-start this movement by producing a magazine that allows anyone to submit any articles they want, without regard for credentials or methodology. After all, in these early stages of reform it is very clear that "outsiders" can make some very valuable contributions.
However, I doubt very much most of these hard-nosed scientists would ever reform along with us. So, I suggest a compromise: Let us divide science up into three categories:
Classic Science - What you see as science today, namely putting order into the experienced world, without regard as to what the nature of the Real World is. The limits of empirical evidence shall be its weakness.
Reformed Science - Science the way you ingeniously envision! Here, we are free to examine exactly what is "real" or not, etc. Purely ontological arguments are most welcome!
Creation Science - This will be the only form of science allowed to make appeals to scripture, authority, and the supernatural etc.
And, when this is done, the world will be a much happier, intellectually livelier place!!
</devil's advocate>
The good news is that the work has already been done for us:
"Classic Science" is, indeed, the study of the empirical world. And, that's all it needs to be, in order to be most useful.
Your "Reformed Science" is actually known as Postmodernism. And, yes, its perpetuators publish magazines that allow anyone to publish any gibberish articles they want.
"Creation Science", of course, is not science at all. They only call it that to try to fool everyone.
Now, I ask you, of all the decades postmodernism has been in existence, how many valuable contributions have they made to our understanding of the Universe? (My count is 0.)
You can, and should, feel free to dabble in postmodern thinking, if you wish (hey, it's a free country), but let's try to keep the methods of the three "sciences" distinct, okay?
For much of this post, Wowbagger will be playing the role of Devil's Advocate. Wowbagger, himself does not necessarily believe everything he says within the <devil's advocate> tags.
<devil's advocate>
You are absolutely correct, Lifegazer!! Science does indeed need to reform in exactly the ways you describe!! Hey, perhaps we can jump-start this movement by producing a magazine that allows anyone to submit any articles they want, without regard for credentials or methodology. After all, in these early stages of reform it is very clear that "outsiders" can make some very valuable contributions.
However, I doubt very much most of these hard-nosed scientists would ever reform along with us. So, I suggest a compromise: Let us divide science up into three categories:
Classic Science - What you see as science today, namely putting order into the experienced world, without regard as to what the nature of the Real World is. The limits of empirical evidence shall be its weakness.
Reformed Science - Science the way you ingeniously envision! Here, we are free to examine exactly what is "real" or not, etc. Purely ontological arguments are most welcome!
Creation Science - This will be the only form of science allowed to make appeals to scripture, authority, and the supernatural etc.
And, when this is done, the world will be a much happier, intellectually livelier place!!
</devil's advocate>
The good news is that the work has already been done for us:
"Classic Science" is, indeed, the study of the empirical world. And, that's all it needs to be, in order to be most useful.
Your "Reformed Science" is actually known as Postmodernism. And, yes, its perpetuators publish magazines that allow anyone to publish any gibberish articles they want.
"Creation Science", of course, is not science at all. They only call it that to try to fool everyone.
Now, I ask you, of all the decades postmodernism has been in existence, how many valuable contributions have they made to our understanding of the Universe? (My count is 0.)
You can, and should, feel free to dabble in postmodern thinking, if you wish (hey, it's a free country), but let's try to keep the methods of the three "sciences" distinct, okay?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
I think that you'll enjoy it. Magee writes very clearly, and is also a pretty formidible philosopher in his own right (though he would be the first to deny this, and claim to be merely a presenter of 'real' philosophers). Let me know what you think, if possible, after reading the book.
BR,
Keith
Sorry Geoff mate, but...OK, then. I'd like to defend disjunctivism.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/perc-obj.htm
So how does the great mind of lifegazer respond to the claims of a disjunctivist? Does he even understand why its relevant? Will he even be able to figure out what disjunctivism is and whether he should be agreeing or disagreeing with it? Or will his brain derail if he tries?
Oh....and you might actually have to read the whole article if you want to be able to provide a sensible response.
There is no longer a possibility of us having a long and mature debate about any aspect of philosophy. Your negative emotions with regard to 'me', prevent that possibility. In other words, your attitude towards me prevents such a possibility... and you must realise this yourself.
... However, just to show that I'm not trying to evade your post, I will offer a brief response to what you said, lest 'the mob' think I am somehow evading what you had to say:
The position held by 'disjunctivists' that different mental experiences such as: worldly perception; visualisation; dreams; hallucinations, implies that worldly-experience is, therefore, a consequence of worldly-reality, does not follow.
It's as simple as that.
We could enquire as to the differences between such mental-experiences until the cows come home, but nothing of that conversation would result with the logical conclusion that, therefore, the world which we perceive, is real.
The simple fact is, that the ONLY conclusion which logic can glean from the information at-hand, is that The Self (whatever that may be), appears to be able to have several different types of experience of 'things' - none of which are real in and of themselves.
Sorry Geoff, but that's the ultimate logical-analysis of the disjunctivist's viewpoint. Which kinda neutralises that viewpoint.
The essential point is that experience of a thing is not the reality of a thing in and of itself... regardless of how one experiences a thing.
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 862
True, but meaningless as far as science is concerned.