Why Do I Believe in the Scientfic Method?

There is so much about any single individual underlying and operating "unconsciously" in determining what they believe - i.e. what they feel they need to do to regulate themselves - that it can sometimes feel impossible to convey.

When you dedicate yourself to becoming a "polymath", its perhaps inevitable that you come to appreciate the spiritual basis of the world we experience. For me, while I'm not sure I yet the deserve the title 'polymath', I have grown more and more aware of the complex emotional processes that operate in human beings, and it has simply floored me to realize how remarkably complex - yet coherent, i.e. ordered - the whole of reality is.

What I didn't suspect during all those years, up until the election of Trump, was that there were another group of people who felt "sure" they knew how the universe worked. Empirically speaking, they had good reason for thinking so: they manipulated its dynamics all the time, and in doing so, no doubt conveyed to their own brain-mind how awesome - how horribly and terrifically marvelous - reality can be.

What I also didn't know is how well known this stuff is. A parallel reality can exist - a world and culture with social beings like you who have something you don'thave: knowledge. Sir Francis Bacon spoke very accurately when he described knowledge as power, even if he probably meant it in a scientific way, he perhaps also meant it in a magical way: that knowledge of magic, or reality as an "energetically alive being", is a profound sort of knowledge that renders the person aware of it somewhat different from the person who isn't. Yet ALL knowledge is power - scientific knowledge, because it is so painstakingly gotten, is the more profound knowledge of all: it is the sort of knowledge that a logically organized mind cannot help but bow to. It is truth - it is legitimate, objective reality - the same thing that makes you and your motivations and your beliefs what they are.

Nothing seems more ridiculous to me than living and embodying desires that are perverse, wrong, and illogical, and which you know to be a step-by-step function of iterative events with quantitative inputs that resulted in qualitative shifts. For the universe to have made you as you are, for you to be what you are, more or less means You have so little free-will to begin with!

This is what makes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, so freaking ridiculous to me. They talk as if they are aware of the dynamics which underlie the humans construction (they ARE NOT attuned to the intricacies, and therefore rely upon roughshed cliches like "love thy neighbor" to promote good behavior; in other words, logical argument is no where near what human beings require to change) and of course, they are not, which is why they so arrogantly make absolutist claims about reality to begin with.

Take the churches and other philosophers, theologians, and mystics, writing in these traditions, and notice the licence they grant themselves to make assertions. From whence do these assertive impulses emanate, besides the irrational conviction that "it has been revealed to me" - the "it" being the "god of reality", or the "higher self"? Why does one assume that the self works that way? Because magic, of course, and the awe it comes from, more or less has traumatized their consciousness evidently resulting in a fixation - as all experience is a fixation - made because the latter experience (the so called 'mysterium tremendum') is only so terrible because it is being UNCONSCIOUSLY COMPARED AGAINST A PAST EXPERIENCE. This is the theory: if you have suffered a negative trauma, this negative trauma - a horrible and deeply painful psychological experience of being - is now a part of your bioneurological structure. The brain does not store your memories "some place else". The very fibers and tracts - the systems - which mediate the perception ARE THE MEMORY. They constitute a unity, which, at your perceptual level of experience, is unified as the "singularity" of your self-experience.

It's because of this that I realize how true 'knowledge is power' is. Magick, or the stuff which occupies the minds of so many people here, is profoundly unimpressive to me. It is totally unhinged in its lack of concern for epistemological standards for knowledge; it accepts what it hears, and more or less doesn't care for the fact that it only believes as it does because the interactions it has had with others inextricably MADE THEM what they are currently doing.

This determinism is both frustrating and liberating: because it isn't completely determined. Our logical mind can always attune to what is happening and realize that it can, although it knows it will be painful and difficult and long, accept reality as it apparently exhibits itself to be, and not fight it to no end and for no purpose.

Knowledge is power - and no knowledge is as satisfyingly comprehensive as science is - and only a person who either hates science, or is simply ignorant of it, could fail to appreciate that democracy, freedom, liberty, common sense and basic decency strongly depends upon the scientific method being understood as an epistemologically democratic method - a method that treats everyone equally, not assuming some of us have 'special access' with the universal "center" - a delusion we should recognize from psychodynamic theories and ethology and brain function to be obviously a narcissistic defense mechanism against unconscious feelings of deficiency.

It is also liberating to let go of the pretense of metaphysical certainty. I may say, sometimes too strongly, that material reality is organized by a sort of formal 'symmetry', but this doesn't in itself necessitate anything. In fact, at the social level, Michael Tomasello's theory of 'shared-intentionality' and 'common ground referencing' as a basic requirement for communication expresses symmetry. But since all of us are different, and feel different and have different needs, that means Karl Popper's concept of "tolerance" is a sort of symmetry based in a realistic understanding of what ignoring peoples feeling needs results in: a very strong and socially corrosive push back.

If democracy is to be preserved, and our cultures evolve in a way that provides more inner freedom and greater feelings of wellbeing, then it will only work when the widest number of needs can be met - so long as no one is being harmed in the process. This latter caveat is universally experienced as reasonable, which is why it is an obvious place to start.

For what purpose? Human civilization will never get better - the human life will never be freed from traumatic affects, depressive cognitions and horrific actions - until we get over the hump, the neurologically embodied traumata, so that we can come to experience the freedom of "not knowing" until it is firmly established. The 'universal and ultimate' truth - what magic can reveal - only points to how the human mind can imbue and enliven environments with arbitrary stories that each human being believes and values: hence it's 'paranormal' nature. The world can play counterpoint, but that sort of knowledge doesn't help us much since we are doing nothing more than projecting our personality structure onto the "other".

Is dreaming or fantasizing any different? Why should waking consciousness, then, and the awareness of the world as "spiritual", mean you somehow 'know everything

?? People need to realize that ultimate truth (spiritual source) and relative truth, are different things - and BOTH MATTER.

Yet the traumatized mind is known to reflexively eject disturbing thoughts: just as the brain forces the organism to vomit out a noxious substance. Indeed, a past thread referred to the very close and similar circuitry underlying "ejecting" bad food from the body and "ejecting" bad experiences from the conscious mind. This is obviously the same sort of process just operating at a higher level: our brain tries to protect us from what were afraid of so that we can maintain our cognitive 'coherency' i.e. enlivened functioning. But this reflexive habit is suboptimal, because it is incremental and cumulative: eventually the threshold is reached and the mind can tolerate 'no more'. This is usually when serious mental breakdown comes, and since this is an inherently terrifying experience i.e. "losing your ego" (the very thing the person seeks to preserve) a really stubborn mind which cultivated antinomianism or rebellion has ironically created the very forces which prevent him from doing what would logically prevent the loss of the ego: connecting with the other.

In any case, a deep scientific knowledge of reality, and a willingness to subject your ideas to critical analysis, and accepting the standards and protocols associated with this process, allows us much room to breath, insomuch as we are wisely and pragmatically focusing our attention on reality, and not "the ultimate". This wise approach allows us to accept that "we don't know why" something is the way it is; but if it hurts us and damages us, it is a good idea to do what is inherently satisfying: connecting with other humans, and working out in a pragmatic and compassionate way what we can do to help us live more happily and healthily.

This is a republic.

Many top scientists have a personal relationship with the Living God.

Do what Great Grandma did: Say this. God, I don't believe in you, but if you are real, make yourself known to me. He did, to her surprise

Be leary of the interpretations of the scientific evidence. Check the parameters and the reason for the research. I studied research on how a medicine reacts in a mouse, with a genetic mutation used to knock out an enzyme. What good is that information. First of all, very few people are completely missing an enzyme. Second, a mouse is different than a human, humans may or may not have an alternate enzyme or path. But the data was used to create a policy in our healthcare, the interpretation could be mouse poop.

I have compared too many interpretations with the evidence, over half of the interpretations are hogwash. They were trying to find evidence to prove their line of thinking, that evidence may or may not even apply. That is just in medical science, I actually discovered it was happening extensively in other science before I switched my focus to medical research. I guess that trying to get funding to do research is the main reason for the flawed results.

I like studying the research, I have done a real lot of it over the years. But I get frustrated when I see it misapplied. People complain about misapplied info creating fake news, I guess the news agencies learned from science.

I will keep my faith in the supreme consciousness. Wisdom that guides me to find the truth and identify the falsities that exist.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I can agree to some extent - It's ironic because although I have had many, many experiences that are not able to be explained (as well as practice a few things science has yet to accept), I still believe in the scientific method as well.

I am a very firm believer in ghosts and some kind of an afterlife, and yet, I accept that it's quite possible that:
A. Ghosts are part of an overactive imagination/madness of crowds phenomenon brought on by (EMFs? Barometric pressure changes? "Bad air"?).

B. We only have this one life (The only truth that we know for 110% sure is that at some point, our biological body breaks down to the point it can't repair itself; and then we are worm food).

On the flip side, one could argue that science itself is a religion: We (as humans) do not know why we are here, or where we came from, or what even created this thing called reality. The only difference that I see between science and religion is that science, and the method of validating something as "fact", is more procedural.

For example - think of how the universe was "created": On the religious side - it was explained that the universe was brought into being by a divine entity. To a scientist, there was some kind of "event" (the Big Bang), which is still a theory as to how the universe comes into play. Because neither group were there at the time, it isn't quite a "fact" yet as to what created all of this. The only fact is that we are here.

To put this in a different context, here's a simple demonstration: I can tell how bad a thunderstorm will be based on the headaches I get before the storm comes. Put me in ancient times, and I'd be seen as a prophet. He has predicted a severe thunderstorm, and it has become so! . Now then, compare this with a modern-day weather man: He has to utilize software that can manage millions of points of data to come up with an (often incorrect) forecast. The closest I can come to explaining this phenomenon is that back when I had an MRI, I got the same headache that I normally get with a thunderstorm. Now: Both me and the scientist use different methods that most often come to a somewhat correct result that is reproducible and repeatable - Are we not both using the scientific method?

a reply to: Astrocyte

To be honest, you lost me at "until Trump won the election." I thought OK, another intellectual hack.

Then, to be nice, I read through your post.

You know, Einstein wrote plainly. He did so that the majority of people could read his thoughts and understand them.

You don't talk to people in reality the way you write your thoughts out here.

Please try doing so.

It appears that you have taken a whole lot of time to attempt to describe why you have a superiority complex. With a Thesaurus, no less.

Let me help you.

There is a conscious and a subconscious mind. They work together. There is also an odd part of the subconscious that is part of everyone else's subconscious on the planet. You have attempted to call that spiritual, which is how people since the dawn of time have had to describe it. Those descriptions are called religions. Now, no matter what the religion, it is just our conscious minds trying to describe something that they can't. The subconscious mind directly effects how the conscious mind works. It effects our reality, our lives.

To attempt to shoe-horn that into what you term as a scientific method will never work. Simply because our "science" is currently woefully short of quantifying and measuring something we don't have the tools to do yet.

What I thought you were alluding to is that many minds thinking together can change things, as far as reality goes. There is your Majik. But that's just reality... of course it does.

I hope that helped.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Astrocyte

To be honest, you lost me at "until Trump won the election." I thought OK, another intellectual hack.

Then, to be nice, I read through your post.

You know, Einstein wrote plainly. He did so that the majority of people could read his thoughts and understand them.

You don't talk to people in reality the way you write your thoughts out here.

Please try doing so.

It appears that you have taken a whole lot of time to attempt to describe why you have a superiority complex. With a Thesaurus, no less.

Let me help you.

There is a conscious and a subconscious mind. They work together. There is also an odd part of the subconscious that is part of everyone else's subconscious on the planet. You have attempted to call that spiritual, which is how people since the dawn of time have had to describe it. Those descriptions are called religions. Now, no matter what the religion, it is just our conscious minds trying to describe something that they can't. The subconscious mind directly effects how the conscious mind works. It effects our reality, our lives.

To attempt to shoe-horn that into what you term as a scientific method will never work. Simply because our "science" is currently woefully short of quantifying and measuring something we don't have the tools to do yet.

What I thought you were alluding to is that many minds thinking together can change things, as far as reality goes. There is your Majik. But that's just reality... of course it does.

I hope that helped.

I agree, he needs to interpret his info for people, kind of put it into layman's terms. In some subjects it is not easy to do but he could learn to do it in the majority of his posts without losing content too badly. Some people think that way though, I do understand. Translating it is hard for some people. I actually spend a lot of time translating my posts into things that others can understand. It would be a lot easier to talk like experts do, but I learned a while back that nobody understood what I was trying to say. The funny thing is that the people who interpret research and try to summarize it often mess up too. That is why I try to read research myself and interpret it then go to verify if my interpretation is correct. Some of the research I try to verify requires a subscription fee to read the article it is based on. Nice way of hiding things, I look around for hours sometimes looking for free info to verify the correctness of some interpretations.

Then I have to completely understand it to translate it into laymans terms.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Maybe you could be more succinct.
That would be great.
You make intelligent posts.
I appreciate your input.
But, damn...too many words.

It is always the "mystics" that seek the objective truth that understand most.

Newton.

Tesla:
“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla

Carl Gustav Jung
Synchronicity

Wolfgang Pauli
"Pauli effect"

These things are only mysterious if you do not go deep enough into how these things are manifested thru entanglement on quantum level.

Many Scientist of today are more interested of playing the role of Clergy preaching fake models (idols) than "knowing" the secrets of existence. The souls pushing for "unawareness" in the masses are greater than the number of souls pushing for "awareness".

a reply to: Astrocyte

Yikes, one of the most arrogant, 'I'm smarter than everyone else, so let me tell you how things go', posts I've ever read on ATS.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Do what Great Grandma did: Say this. God, I don't believe in you, but if you are real, make yourself known to me. He did, to her surprise

How? And is this method scientifically repeatable/testable? You know since we are talking about the Scientific Method, scientists and such.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How? And is this method scientifically repeatable/testable? You know since we are talking about the Scientific Method, scientists and such.

Is there a metaphysics dept ? If there was I am sure Rupert would be working with them . Just as science progressed in imagining things they could not see but being able to detect them through experiments then some how testing and looking at results will probably be the way of suggesting that its a real phenomenon .

I see that Astrocyte is still working through the issues that he has with his own traumatic mind by writing down his thoughts. I hope that the "logical mind" that he strives for helps him to see and understand that what he writes describes himself, that he doesn't have as much knowledge as he would like to believe, and that he's capable of taking his own advice. At least, I'm hoping that he has enough self awareness to realize this eventually.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

How do you know a phenomenon that hasn't been identified is god though? God needs to be scientifically defined before you can prove it exists scientifically you know.


PS: Youtube isn't science btw, and Parapsychology is a pseudo-science that doesn't follow the scientific method (again what this thread is about).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How do you know a phenomenon that hasn't been identified is god though? God needs to be scientifically defined before you can prove it exists scientifically you know.

I'm not convinced that scientists would admit it even if they did have scientific proof of such an existence.

Slowly, but surely, science is proving what the Bible says about man having been created from the dust of the earth, but do you think they'll make such a statement? We know that through Mitochondria that humans and animals all share common living organisms that are found in soil life, but you'll never hear science tie that to anything stated in the Bible.

As smart as some think they are, we're far from proving the origins of the universe and how life came to be. Not to mention, how humans are able to think, reason, experience emotion, etc.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How do you know a phenomenon that hasn't been identified is god though? God needs to be scientifically defined before you can prove it exists scientifically you know.

Do you think the Higgs Bozon is accurately named and described ? When naming places the Natives incorporated a descriptive into it so it could be identified . Then came along the Europeans who renamed many places after people . Trying to put God into a descriptive box becomes a bit dogmatic and limits Him in our minds . How do you define "all powerful" and what are the perimeters ? (scientifically speaking ) ? We use can's and cant's in our discoveries . Using can't and God in the same sentence is probably not a good idea .

PS: Youtube isn't science btw, and Parapsychology is a pseudo-science that doesn't follow the scientific method (again what this thread is about).

YT is full of ideas and stuff . Take music for instance , Is it scientific ? Actually things like art and beauty are not really science but play a big part in the human experience . If the OP was strictly scientific then they would not have brought God into their thread . One has limits while the other does not . One has a mind while the other is a method .The method has limits .

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How do you know a phenomenon that hasn't been identified is god though? God needs to be scientifically defined before you can prove it exists scientifically you know.

I'm not convinced that scientists would admit it even if they did have scientific proof of such an existence.

This is bull#. There are plenty of religious scientists out there who would love for their religious worldview to be validated scientifically and you are doing them a disservice by doubting their intentions. Not every scientist is atheist...

Slowly, but surely, science is proving what the Bible says about man having been created from the dust of the earth, but do you think they'll make such a statement? We know that through Mitochondria that humans and animals all share common living organisms that are found in soil life, but you'll never hear science tie that to anything stated in the Bible.

No it isn't. Slowly but surely science is ACTUALLY showing that the events of the bible are fictional. Just because the Bible said something that vaguely resembles science's position on it doesn't make the bible accurate.

The Bible fails the scientific method analysis anyways since it assumes things are true without testing.

As smart as some think they are, we're far from proving the origins of the universe and how life came to be. Not to mention, how humans are able to think, reason, experience emotion, etc.

No scientist has EVER said they are close to understanding the universe and most will say that we've barely scratched the surface of the depth of knowledge out there. This doesn't mean that the bible is credible though.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think the Higgs Bozon is accurately named and described ? When naming places the Natives incorporated a descriptive into it so it could be identified . Then came along the Europeans who renamed many places after people . Trying to put God into a descriptive box becomes a bit dogmatic and limits Him in our minds . How do you define "all powerful" and what are the perimeters ? (scientifically speaking ) ? We use can's and cant's in our discoveries . Using can't and God in the same sentence is probably not a good idea .

Names are just place holders to help us identify something easier. You could name it Xibsil and it would still have the same properties as it does now.

But if you are going to cop out and say that science cannot define god then your god doesn't exist. It's just that simple. I'm not going to waste brain power contemplating some magical being that no one can pinpoint how to describe. Might as well just call it "Magic" and move on.

Plus, at the very least we should be able to detect anything that god does in the universe because of the 3rd law of motion.

YT is full of ideas and stuff . Take music for instance , Is it scientific ? Actually things like art and beauty are not really science but play a big part in the human experience . If the OP was strictly scientific then they would not have brought God into their thread . One has limits while the other does not . One has a mind while the other is a method .The method has limits .

Ideas aren't science though. This thread is about the scientific method which is what defines what is and isn't science. God is just simply NOT scientific. It is a matter of believing something then trying to find evidence to fit your conclusion, which is illogical.

I have a question for you. Why is god even necessary for existence?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No it isn't. Slowly but surely science is ACTUALLY showing that the events of the bible are fictional. Just because the Bible said something that vaguely resembles science's position on it doesn't make the bible accurate.

LOL! You're the one full of Bull#!

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No it isn't. Slowly but surely science is ACTUALLY showing that the events of the bible are fictional. Just because the Bible said something that vaguely resembles science's position on it doesn't make the bible accurate.

LOL! You're the one full of Bull#!

Orly? Feel free to produce a scientific paper validating any magical claim in the Bible. I'll wait. Hell they are actually finding that even events that are purely historical in nature were either embellished or flat out were impossible (Herod killing all the babies after Jesus' birth for instance).

Tsk tsk... Nothing lazier in arguing than just saying "Nuh Huh! You're wrong!"