Scientific Knowledge contradicts nature.

Science "knowledge" is nothing but one huge mind control OP with a stealth agenda.

It's just like the MSM with an added bonus of completely false credibility.

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

"Historical, religious and political truths have been withheld from the general public in order to perpetuate armed conflict," he continues. "Similarly if the presently suppressed technology were to be made commercially available, disease, famine and environmental pollution virtually would become eradicated."

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History

reply to post by Murgatroid


And that is the reason why we need people to learn to think more scientifically. If you educate yourself then you will not be easily fooled. When you do the science on your own, you will understand the data yourself.

candlestick

SaturnFX
Evolution is constantly altering species for efficiency and getting an edge up on nature.

technology does the same. I therefore offer up the hypothesis that technology is actually a natural progression of evolution.

aka, your ipad is as natural as fingers.

Technology seem to be cancer cells in nature...Cancer cell is no related with evil.

Technology is mankinds evolution.
Your computer where your typing from agrees

reply to post by SaturnFX


Cancer could be one of the evolution result.
wikipedia:

Cancer cells are cells that grow and divide at an unregulated, quickened pace. Although cancer cells can be quite common in a person they are only malignant when the other cells (particularly natural killer cells) fail to recognize and/or destroy them.

Natural killer cells seem to be natural killer animals...

(Star~star ...I am a new and I need more stars ✮ ✭ ✬ ✫ ✩ ☆ ✰ ★)

candlestick
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Cancer could be one of the evolution result.

wikipedia:

Cancer cells are cells that grow and divide at an unregulated, quickened pace. Although cancer cells can be quite common in a person they are only malignant when the other cells (particularly natural killer cells) fail to recognize and/or destroy them.

Natural killer cells seem to be natural killer animals...

(Star~star ...I am a new and I need more stars ✮ ✭ ✬ ✫ ✩ ☆ ✰ ★)

ok, but life in general could be equated the same. life is out of control replication on this planet...
Oh, and stars are useless...don't even buy you ATS Swag sadly....now Karma..thats where its at...

reply to post by ImaFungi

The definition is flawed, wrong, and dumb. I didnt say humans can do harm to natural things, humans have the choice to use stuff they create for good or bad, a hammer can be used to build a house or bash an innocent skull. The whole of technology isnt inherently wrong because some clusters of humans over time have been ignorant to the damage they do. Also you didnt respond to any other parts of my otherwise perfect post? Oh and Liberal1984's response is perfect too, now the choice is up to you whether or not you will remain with your head in the sand. We have obviously considered your arguments, it is very easy to do so, do not think one, or we, can not entertain multiple, any, or all perspectives in an argument. How closely have you considered what Liberal1984's post says. The truth is right there.

If you are trying to make the point that the universe is "Nature", that's fine. Sure, technology exists in the universe. That is not in doubt.

But there is no rational reason to redefine the word "nature" on a mere whim, because we find it dumb. There is a reason for the contrast between nature and the creations of man, because technology, as far as we can tell, is a unique occurrence. It is nothing like the rest of nature. It isn't biodegradable. Nothing can eat it. It's linear and geometric in form. It's precise and ordered. It's mechanical. It requires an engineer.

I didn't say technology is wrong or right. I stated, I think quite reasonably, that it exists at the expense of nature. I explicitly and implicitly stated that technology is in contradiction to nature because of this, and because it shares no resemblance, properties nor form with anything else so far seen in the universe. Do you disagree with that? I don't believe that contradictions or paradoxes actually exist in nature, or the universe, but only in our expression and language; and I believe technology is a contradiction insofar as it is an expression, designed, built and produced on the grounds and languages of so-called "scientific knowledge", which is supposed to be an accurate description of nature, yet what it produces is nothing like our universe.

SaturnFX

ok, but life in general could be equated the same. life is out of control replication on this planet...
Oh, and stars are useless...don't even buy you ATS Swag sadly....now Karma..thats where its at...

edit on 8-4-2014 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

Compare with most of life on this planet ,human technology is grow at an unregulated, quickened pace.

Why you think those stars I need are useless?Obviously,my profile picture look better with stars.
I don't care the Karma number.

You are attempting to state a contradiction where there isn't one.

Death can be claimed to be the contradiction to life, night the contradiction to day, technology is and must be an extension of nature as with out nature it cannot occur.

Some philosophically claim life could not exist without death and so death is an extension of life. Hence why the subconscious mind has evolved to justify death as a just cause.

In a culture based on control we feel the need for absolute answers yet in many aspects of our existence, it is the perspective we have that determines what is and what isn't.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


I disagree, 99.9999% of the universe/'nature' is 'contradictory' towards the biology of earth, which is what you appear to be focusing on when you use the term nature. Heck, much of the biology of earth when brought to other areas of earth or when interacting or compared with other areas of earth is contradictory to each other. My point is it is an arbitrary mistake to make the distinction between non human nature, and human nature, and artificial human nature. My contention is one of objectivity, there exists a total nature, and all things of it are of nature, all that is possible to occur is possible to occur, whatever is possible to occur cannot be called unnatural, because all things that occur, occur naturally.

I agree that some inventions and technology of humans harm the natural and complex biological eco system, I agree that human stupidity is a completely natural expectation and that the contradictory short sided use of knowledge and implementation is nothing but that, stupidity, in the realm of 'suffer the consequences of your actions as this appears to be the only rule'. Now make your distinction; Can you imagine an ultra advanced, modern, civilized, sophisticated, depending on tons of technology, species of intelligence which does not contradict your 'nature'? Which works with it, and thinks ahead to make sure they will not damage or disrupt the natural balances which have taken billions of years to stably form? Or are you a complete luddite? Or are you not against the contradiction or destruction of nature, this is merely an observation of yours you wish to ponder and discuss the significance there of?

TheSubversiveOne
Just food for thought

Technology isn't magic, it all works on natural laws.

If one was to walk on a beach and find a watch in the sand, it can be inferred without a doubt that the specimen is an example of technology, and not nature. This contrast between the artificiality of technology, its overly geometric and uniform shape and texture, and the rest of objects on the beach is immediately apparent. There is a certain contradiction or irony in its presence. It doesn’t belong. Why?

The internal components of the computer you used to make this post are nothing more than a very precise arrangement of the same grains of sand you walk on at the beach.

There are no straight lines, triangles, perfect circles, or numbers in nature, yet there are plenty in the human mind, and thus in our scientific models. Nature’s form and properties are only abstractly depicted in this manner, as perhaps too much of it is rounded off for the sake of objectivity, or intelligibility, and countless variables are virtually excluded in their conception, deemed as mere noise. Technological design, if it relies on these purely mathematical and scientific conditions, is therefor limited to these artificial forms in order to for it to have any shape. As a result, technology is composed of geometrical forms made of various synthetic materials. Technology contradicts nature in its very form and properties. Hence, technology stands out as distinct from nature.

Really? Have you looked at how often symmetry plays a role in nature? How about the very odd placement of Phi in everything from seashells, to pinecones, to branches on a tree?

Scientific knowledge is the foundation of technology, yet engineers are unable to design, nor construct, any sort of natural thing using natural materials, and natural forms—for instance a tree, or a conscious being—and instead must rely on abstract forms of geometry, number, and synthetic materials in order to design and create technology. All technology is, in that sense, artificial and in contradiction to nature.

The pyramids are made out of blocks of stone, a very natural material. Biomimicry usually results in the greatest returns on technology as well. Technology is in large part an imitation of nature.

In controlled experiment, the conditions are of human choice and not a natural one, and are such that no other environment like it exists in nature, and the results are therefor artificial. There is never a set of “given certain conditions” in nature, being that the conditions are never certain, and an artificial result always manifests from the controlled experiment.

This is incorrect. You have circumstance a providing result y in a lab experiment. Then you have circumstance b produce result z. By learning all of the various cause and effects, you can then create real world examples where large systems interact with each other. This is the reason weather forecasting statistically is no better than guessing. It's a very complicated system and people haven't figured out all of the variables that go into a result.

If what results from scientific models and principles and laws of nature is technology, why is it that technology and nature are in such contradiction?

They aren't in a contradiction. Technology is a result of applied math, usually in the form of physics. Technology and the natural world rely on the same laws. Electrical resistance, critical mass, fluid dynamics, and many others. There is no difference. The hair of a dog traps pockets of air which keeps it warm, the layer of cotton in our winter coat traps the air to create a layer of insulation as well. As does the fiberglass insulation in your home. It's all the same principal.

Is the artificiality of technology, evidence that our scientific foundational models are not quite an accurate description of nature?

No. Nature creates organic systems to manipulate the world, so far we don't have that knowledge we can only create inorganic systems to fill the same purpose.

Is the artificiality of technology, evidence that applied mathematical and geometric thinking cannot quite represent nature, because there is no such mathematics or geometry outside of the human mind to which it could be applied?

As I explained before this premise is wrong, math is everywhere in nature.

Scientific Knowledge contradicts nature.

That is logically incorrect.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Scientific knowledge is derived from nature.

Technology is in contradiction to nature.

That hypothesis is incorrect too.

For example the mastery of fire is one of the earliest technology, and it's not in contradiction with nature.

Hence, your reasoning is incorrect because it's based on incorrect hypothesis.

Nature – Anything that isn't technology.

You invented that one. This is one accepted definition

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe.

HTH.

Your proposition is a non sequitur.

Scientific knowledge is all about how nature works.
Technology is a natural extension of evolution.

TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by Glorification

 

I would say that technology is a part of nature.

Just as the ant's mound and underground tunnels are a part of nature.

Just as the bee's hive and honey combs are a part of nature.

Just as the chimpanzee's tool is a part of nature. The spider's silk. (I'm aware this is stretching it as some of these examples are actually created by their biological processes, the point still stands.)

How can it not be a part of nature. If your answer is because humanity created it, I will refer you to my above examples and urge you to think deeper.

We are animals.

They are none alike. Think about it deeper.

We destroy nature, and thus go against it, to build and run technology. Ants use dirt. Birds use what's around them. Spider's use processes of their own bodies.

What you call nature destroys nature too. Nature goes against itself, just like you say technology goes against nature. Volcanoes destroy forests. Species hunt other species to extinction. Microscopic parasites make ants kill themselves. Ants farm other organisms.

We use dirt too, for a multitude of purposes. We too use what is around us. We too use the processes of our own bodies. And so does technology. (For example, a programmer working with is computer is using his own body and the environment around him, is he not? Just like ants or apes).

To me the the only difference is that technology is created, consciously, by something like humans or chimps. It's one step removed from nature. But only one step. It seems very arrogant and human-centric to say that technology is fundamentally different from nature. Just like they used to say, and many still do, that humanity is apart from nature.

EDIT: Just wanted to say that your OP was very interesting and made me think even if I don't agree on this point, might comment more after I read it again.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Interesting read. The technology/nature divide, as a conundrum, has crossed my mind. Sometimes I think they're the same, other times I don't.

I think the general consensus is we can improve on nature by not being at its mercy at all times. For example, if you break a bone, you do not have to let nature do its thing. If you do, you'll very likely lose a limb or function of your body or even die from infection. Another example is if a person has bad eyesight. If we're to be at the mercy of nature, we must either cope with the bad eyesight or we must hope it will magically resolve itself. By employing technological wizardry we can instead make eyeglasses or contact lenses or use laser surgery to correct the bad eyesight. So, in conclusion, using technology, we're able to improve on nature in some cases, like when we break a bone or have bad eyesight, thus enabling us to potentially better survive.

But can we overdo it? Can we go too far with our technology? Of course. We might not fully understand nature and as a result lose something important in our race to "fix" or "improve" everything. Nature doesn't always hurt us, as in the case of a broken bone or bad eyesight or even neural or neurotic disorders of the mind. Sometimes nature can help us, but it's not always clear HOW it's helping us. Therein lies the risk in using technology too recklessly (if not religiously).

This is why we must give nature credit where it's due and give it the benefit of the doubt sometimes. It may be right when we think it's wrong.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Mind = BLOWN

Thanks OP, one of the most thought provoking threads in months.

God Bless,

reply to post by Aazadan

Technology isn't magic, it all works on natural laws.

Natural laws according to man, not nature.

The internal components of the computer you used to make this post are nothing more than a very precise arrangement of the same grains of sand you walk on at the beach.

Nowhere else in the universe are components precisely arranged by an engineer.

Really? Have you looked at how often symmetry plays a role in nature? How about the very odd placement of Phi in everything from seashells, to pinecones, to branches on a tree?

Phi isn’t placed in anything. Phi is derived from nature, not supplied to it. It is you, not nature, that is oddly placing phi into it.

The pyramids are made out of blocks of stone, a very natural material. Biomimicry usually results in the greatest returns on technology as well. Technology is in large part an imitation of nature.

An imitation of nature isn’t nature.

This is incorrect. You have circumstance a providing result y in a lab experiment. Then you have circumstance b produce result z. By learning all of the various cause and effects, you can then create real world examples where large systems interact with each other. This is the reason weather forecasting statistically is no better than guessing. It's a very complicated system and people haven't figured out all of the variables that go into a result.

Exactly. There are too many variables in nature. Why remove variables if they are a fundamental part of nature? How can we seek to understand nature by throwing most of it away?

They aren't in a contradiction. Technology is a result of applied math, usually in the form of physics. Technology and the natural world rely on the same laws. Electrical resistance, critical mass, fluid dynamics, and many others. There is no difference. The hair of a dog traps pockets of air which keeps it warm, the layer of cotton in our winter coat traps the air to create a layer of insulation as well. As does the fiberglass insulation in your home. It's all the same principal.

If they rely on the same laws, why aren’t they the same?

No. Nature creates organic systems to manipulate the world, so far we don't have that knowledge we can only create inorganic systems to fill the same purpose.

What other inorganic systems look, feel and act like technology?

As I explained before this premise is wrong, math is everywhere in nature.

This is superstition. Math can only ever be found in discourse. I could prove my point by opening any book on the subject. You could never point to me anything called math outside of human discourse.

reply to post by SpaceGoatFarts

That is logically incorrect.

Not according to the definitions of nature and technology. Therefor, you are incorrect.

Scientific knowledge is derived from nature.

Yes fact. Therefor it isn’t nature.

That hypothesis is incorrect too.

For example the mastery of fire is one of the earliest technology, and it's not in contradiction with nature.

Hence, your reasoning is incorrect because it's based on incorrect hypothesis.

You are wrong. The mastery of fire is using nature as is, without the use of mathematical models, machinery or synthetic materials. Once again, I will refer you to the dictionary to recall the definitions.

You invented that one. This is one accepted definition

nature |ˈnāCHər|
noun
1 the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations: the breathtaking beauty of nature.
• the physical force regarded as causing and regulating these phenomena: it is impossible to change the laws of nature. See also Mother Nature.

Technology is human creations, however I don’t see how humans are not a part of nature. Therefor I refined the definition for the purposes of my argument. If you do not agree with the definition, we are simply not talking about the same thing, and the argument is pointless.

reply to post by rom12345

Your proposition is a non sequitur.

Scientific knowledge is all about how nature works.
Technology is a natural extension of evolution.

Show me how it is a non-sequitur.

reply to post by Subnatural

What you call nature destroys nature too. Nature goes against itself, just like you say technology goes against nature. Volcanoes destroy forests. Species hunt other species to extinction. Microscopic parasites make ants kill themselves. Ants farm other organisms.

We use dirt too, for a multitude of purposes. We too use what is around us. We too use the processes of our own bodies. And so does technology. (For example, a programmer working with is computer is using his own body and the environment around him, is he not? Just like ants or apes).

To me the the only difference is that technology is created, consciously, by something like humans or chimps. It's one step removed from nature. But only one step. It seems very arrogant and human-centric to say that technology is fundamentally different from nature. Just like they used to say, and many still do, that humanity is apart from nature.

EDIT: Just wanted to say that your OP was very interesting and made me think even if I don't agree on this point, might comment more after I read it again.

I agree. Nature must consume itself to survive. So then if technology is nature, why doesn’t technology consume itself? Because technology cannot replicate itself as nature does, nor does it give itself back to the nature it consumes once it dies.

I agree in the grand definition of nature, that everything that exists is nature and so forth. But I find this definition meaningless, as it is a definition of nothing in particular. Instead, I would prefer to not speak about the meaningless, and would rather speak about the concrete.

To illustrate how nature is different than technology, imagine laying down in a landfill, amongst carcasses of technology. Then imagine laying in a meadow, amongst the carcasses of trees, grass, and leaves. There is a distinct difference. I am speaking of this difference and contrast, and not any grand theory of everything called “nature”.

It is clear people have different concepts and understanding of Nature and Science(seems to be substituted for todays industry of pseudo science).