The Fundamental Flaws of Modern Rationality

originally posted by: Connell
Not quite, in laymen's terms what I'm trying to say is that the mistake of modern science is to assume that human perception is an absolute. It's not, it's subject to and skewed by our flawed biology.

But you are clearly wrong, or simply misunderstanding science.
If your assertion were correct, we would not currently be working on dark matter or the Higgs Boson, or viewing galaxies billions of light years away.

Hell, if you were right, we wouldn't even have x-rays, nano science, infrared, or hundreds of thousands of other avenues of science.

You claim that we are fundamentally flawed because we only seek out knowledge for what we sense around us, but this is obviously false. We investigate theory, and we find results, these results then lead to breakthroughs.

Basically, evidence leads to revelation of new possibilities and further exploration.

You could have condensed your entire post down to a simple complaint that no evidence is found for the things you believe, and therefore science is wrong for not simply believing your beliefs.

a reply to: Connell

As I said earlier, look up the meaning of 'the universe has a metrical frame.' Then, if you think you still have a leg to stand on, we can have a discussion.

I am interested in philosophy, not in some snotty teenager's unoriginal 'insights'. You are proving to be an intellectual disappointment.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Connell

As I said earlier, look up the meaning of 'the universe has a metrical frame.' Then, if you think you still have a leg to stand on, we can have a discussion.

I am interested in philosophy, not in some snotty teenager's unoriginal 'insights'. You are proving to be an intellectual disappointment.

Oh dear, someone seems to be very upset. You were a disappointment from the moment you decided to comment in the thread, you don't seem to understand the philosophy of people you are quoting. This seems to be devolving into insults, are you going to actually say anything insightful here, or are you going to keep throwing out phrases without bothering to explain yourself and lazily saying "go look it up". I swear, you people are something else....

ITT: I am wrong because because "science has done X, therefore you are wrong". Oh my, I really don't think we are going to get very far here, are we......

a reply to: Connell

Your problem is, you don't prove your point you defend your opinion. You lost all content & now you are just insulting people smarter and/or more experienced than you currently, on a personal level.
Discuss your topic and don't always fall back to this "mirror! You are dumber!" it makes you appear childish and is the real disappointment because you could have a opinion worthy to be discussed, if you could stay on topic. ...says the one who jus made a totally off-topic comment...

Ah, # it, I'm abandoning ship

I agree with the OP to a point. The modern emphasis on rationality and reason has led us to a world that is materialistic. Because of this emphasis on material "objective" means we try to measure everything in society the same way even if it is not tangible.

A prime example of this is education. How does one measure a students abilities and knowledge? How does one measure learning? If the answer is through testing then we would have a perfect education system in place already. Labeling things with isms is a dangerous system. Humans are not objective robots and naturally not the most rational of beings.

With regards to Mathmatics although my initial response was to claim math is perfect and the language of the universe, I realized that is what I have been taught to say. Correct me if I'm wrong but if physics is based on Math and physics breaks down at the quantum level wouldn't math do the same? If this is true then Math is indeed flawed.

a reply to: asmall89

Of course it's flawed, everything we do is flawed.

Some possible ways of correcting for all the materialism might be:

Fund art and music more rather than sports.

Teach Philosophy and Psychology as a mandatory class instead of elective from early grades on.

Fund education more in general providing more teachers per student and more diverse teaching techniques.

Have more hands on learning with specialists in their fields.

Stop with the rigid structure and time schedules and try various other methods for classes.

....Anyone else want to add anything??

The OP is absolutely right!!!!!


Only believing in what's real is obviously flawed..... We should all believe in as many fairy tails as possible, while continuing to give our money to pool pit preachers who push said fairy tails!!!!

originally posted by: mOjOm
Some possible ways of correcting for all the materialism might be:

Fund art and music more rather than sports.

Teach Philosophy and Psychology as a mandatory class instead of elective from early grades on.

Fund education more in general providing more teachers per student and more diverse teaching techniques.

Have more hands on learning with specialists in their fields.

Stop with the rigid structure and time schedules and try various other methods for classes.

....Anyone else want to add anything??

Lol you really think improving education will lead to more belief in fairy tails??? LOL

a reply to: Connell

I won't even begin to pick this apart. It's so off base and so ridiculous it wouldn't do any good. Anyone who buys into this wouldn't benefit from an explanation as to why it's poppycock anyway. Have a good life friend.. might want to try and reevaluate your position. Just my 2 cents.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: mOjOm
Some possible ways of correcting for all the materialism might be:

Fund art and music more rather than sports.

Teach Philosophy and Psychology as a mandatory class instead of elective from early grades on.

Fund education more in general providing more teachers per student and more diverse teaching techniques.

Have more hands on learning with specialists in their fields.

Stop with the rigid structure and time schedules and try various other methods for classes.

....Anyone else want to add anything??

Lol you really think improving education will lead to more belief in fairy tails??? LOL

I thought that's what education in this country was already about? Spreading fairy tails, lies, and brainwashing everyone to fit into western society.

originally posted by: Entreri06

Lol you really think improving education will lead to more belief in fairy tails??? LOL

No, hopefully it would lead to less belief in fairytales. Why would I want more belief in them???

I was only suggesting some ideas. You don't have to laugh at me for it, that's rude. If you think you know better then let's hear your ideas then. Any A-hole can laugh off other peoples ideas. But at least I'm trying to find a solution. What have you got??

originally posted by: asmall89

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: mOjOm
Some possible ways of correcting for all the materialism might be:

Fund art and music more rather than sports.

Teach Philosophy and Psychology as a mandatory class instead of elective from early grades on.

Fund education more in general providing more teachers per student and more diverse teaching techniques.

Have more hands on learning with specialists in their fields.

Stop with the rigid structure and time schedules and try various other methods for classes.

....Anyone else want to add anything??

Lol you really think improving education will lead to more belief in fairy tails??? LOL

I thought that's what education in this country was already about? Spreading fairy tails, lies, and brainwashing everyone to fit into western society.

Yes fairy tales like math and science!! The same fairytales who created EVERYthing you use every day.....

Connel, in one of your posts you said that you haven't seen math beyond high school level, correct? Math even at undergrad level is so far removed from what you've seen in HS, it might as well be an alien language let alone grad level math or (gasp) math as practiced by professionals. In effect, you're attempting to poke holes in systems you haven't even seen. Do you know Mandarin or Russian? If not, you don't go around disputing the qualities of said languages, do you? Not even grad students of math are ready to undertake what you're attempting. How about you start small? Here's a very, very, very simple proof you can practice poking holes at before you take on a behemoth that's mathematics:

Claim: sum of two odd numbers is even.

Proof: By definition, 2k + 1 is an odd number for some integer k. An even number is defined as 2j for some integer j. Then, (2n + 1) + (2m + 1) = 2n + 2m + 2 = 2(n + m + 1) Since m and n are integers n + m + 1 is an integer, so 2(n + m + 1) even by definition of even.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Your post is right, 100%. We know for a fact there is more to the universe then human experience shows us. If the Op was right, we wouldn't be researching all of the things we can not see or experience first hand.

a reply to: Connell

I can flip a coin 20 times and make an 100% accurate prediction every time, my guess being right 20 out of 20 times.

If you had a coin with duplicate sides, sure.

But, guessing with 100% accuracy if a standard US quarter will land on heads or tails 20 times in a row is impossible. That kind if claim would require evidence.

This claim also implies that you have psychic abilities. You should cash-in on those:

Million Dollar Challenge

I suppose I would be making very accurate predictions.

If your claim were true, yes.

But that level of intuitive intelligence would not invalidate the knowledge that we have built using the scientific method.

Just because you could hypothetically make 100% accurate psychic predictions does not mean that everything we have used reason to discover is wrong.

On the contrary, if intuitive intelligence existed it would only compliment linear intelligence.

Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.

What you are describing is the logical law of identity, and yes, it can be applied to objects in the real world.

If Sapiens=Homo and Homo=Hominidae, then Sapiens=Hominidae.

If Earth=Planet and Planet=Celestial Body, then Earth=Celestial Body.

If Bob is a bachelor, and a bachelor is a man who is not (and has never been) married, then Bob is a man who is not (and has never been) married.

All complex logical systems will contain assumptions that can't be proven either true or false, and you have to go outside that system to devise new axioms. It creates a system that continually grows more complex and contains more and more assumptions that can't be proven. The goal of science is to come up with a set of axioms that can explain everything in the outside world, but because of what I just said, science will never achieve that goal.

Except that science is based on observation and repeatable experiments.

Similar to how a human can never fully understand itself, because it can only be certain by relying on the knowledge it has of itself.

Understand itself in what capacity? What it's made of? How it works? Where it came from? The why of it's existence?

Where is our capacity to know of and about ourselves limited?

There is objective knowledge- the knowledge of forms. But you can never know of something with total permanence and certainty.

Why not?

Like, how I know with total permanence and certainty, that if you drink an 8 ounce glass of liquid risin in under 60 seconds, then you will die?

And how would you measure your level of understanding to know you've reached such a level of "knowing?" You would have to define a baseline from which to measure.

As for the risin, I will drink it after I finish with your mother.

It would settle the debate. If you can't absolutely know a thing, then I can't be absolutely certain that 8 ounces of liquid risin consumed in under 60 seconds would absolutely kill you. Using an observable experiment you could show me that we don't have absolute knowledge.

But, if we absolutely knew that absolute knowledge doesn't exist, would that be a paradox?

a reply to: Entreri06

Science created toilet paper?

I thought that was man but I could be wrong.

I'm not saying science and math are "fairy tails" or not of importance to society but that you shouldnt believe everything you're taught in school. That is dangerous to a free thinking society. One of the biggest fallacies of modern education is the idea that you need degrees and years of study to be a "scientist" or to create world changing innovations. This is simply not true.

originally posted by: Connell
Before I get back to work I will leave you all with a quote by Einstein about Mathematics:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"

Surely you would esteem his word highly. He was a scientist after all, so he must be right

.

Math is an invention of man, no argument there. Math isn't perfect as anyone who has studied cryptography understands but it still has a lot of use. With the help of math we can build flying machines and navigate anywhere on the earth guided by satellite GPS.

According to the gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel of the new testament, there was a math test that qualified the apostles to lead the flock. Of course upon passing the math test one would realize that there was still a connection between the Roman secular and Christian religious leadership. That was quite evident during the Byzantine period.

The biblical Qualification is probably similar to the level system in Scientology, there is a requirement to reach a certain level before you are allowed to navigate the course of operations for the church. Sir Isaac Newton knew about the secret bible codes and so did Crowley so you probably could verify the story by asking one of the senior Scientology officers. Crowley passed a lot of secret information to L Ron And Jack Parsons in the early years that are probably still rooted in Scientology.

Lol at these internet pseudo-philosophers with 10,000+ posts attempting to explain anything. I'd rather listen to the sound of 2 pigs f*cking than believe the posts of some mediocre-minded peddlers of garbage thought.