It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is science a reliable source for truth?

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Blarneystoner:



Truth is singular, all versions are mistruths .. There is only one true perspective.




Which one is true? Your perspective or mine?




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

"because we here on ATS frequently talk about the same subjects they contemplated."

Indeed we do, but significant answers or progress where Platonian rhetoric is concerned remains to be seen very often.

It's been done, and done some more really.

I did like his "Analogy of the cave" all the same.
edit on 7-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner



Which one is true? Your perspective or mine?


It may have not even been discovered yet, but there is only one truth and one correct perspective. It's up to us individually to find it.

It's a treasure.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Your own perspective is the correct and only one that matters for all intents and purpose where reality is concerned.

Point of fact there is only your own perspective, it being a rather personal experience.

Then there is empathy, however, that's a whole nother kettle of fish to consider, it does allow us to attempt to see other peoples point of view thus somewhat share there pain all the same.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Well if Gods or a creator force exists, there language will be mathematics.

Science is not predominantly good or bad, that's our bag and our control constructs at play.

Science is nothing more than a tool for the job at hand, how we use it, and what we do with it is our own concern.

Virtue is all about moral standards, science has nothing to do with morality, again that's our own bag of spanners to contend with.

Science is a key but we decide what door it unlocks.


Morality can be quantified also if you define the parameters. To maximize the physical and mental health of conscious beings during their existence on earth. If a society is maximizing the well being of it citizens is measurable if we want to do it.




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

I tend to agree with that to a certain extent.

But we don't, because if we did, we would not repeat the same mistakes from one generation to the next, time and time again.

Our longevity, or lack of such, is the main contention there, we are only really just beginning to learn true wisdom and then its either senility or death.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Middle ground. Now that sounds delightful and I would fully get behind that. Actually, I have no problem with science, if it were used honestly. But it doesn't appear to be very exploratory or open to new ideas. Today it seems to be more like cult.

With their peer reviewed entry into their cult, they make sure that all new blood is toeing the line. If you don't toe the line, you don't get published or you don't get funding. Pretty much you are going nowhere if you buck their religion. What if some of the super technology we use today is simply rediscoveries of past quantum mechanics coded into to the egyptian and mesoamerican pyramids?

There are new theories about how our cosmology works. New theories that make everything connected and brings us together with the cosmos. But those are heavily ridiculed, even when discovery after discovery in space proves those theories correct. They rigidly toe the line, creating wonders of dark matter and dark energy to keep their failing gravitational models from imploding. They keep on creating absolute junk to prop up their everlasting theories instead of asking 'what if'. That is what I have a problem with. Closed mindedness. Faith, cult like behavior, not the traits that will see us into the next harmony with this reality.

We haven't even gotten to the spiritual yet and you can see heads exploding. Is it fixable in the current state? Maybe it is time to start over. I would say it would be easier to relocate a mountain by the spoonful than getting these academic dinosaurs to change their mind and even begin to entertain a new way of thought.
edit on 7-2-2019 by ClovenSky because: failing=imploding



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

Let's just say what we don't know leaves rather a lot to be desired.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner




...but what is Virtue


Us acting in accordance to the sound of heaven..?




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner




Which one is true? Your perspective or mine?


Neither and both.
edit on 7-2-2019 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The ancient Greeks pondered that question... what is virtue?

In Plato's "Meno", Socrates is challenged by Meno...

Meno asks Socrates


"And how are you going to search for [the nature of virtue] when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?"


How would you know what is virtuous when you find it?

Plato develops a theory in his work, Phaedo.



Anamnesis - is a concept in Plato's epistemological and psychological theory that he develops in his dialogues Meno and Phaedo, and alludes to in his Phaedrus. It is the idea that humans possess innate knowledge (perhaps acquired before birth) and that learning consists of rediscovering that knowledge within us.


So, according to Plato, we already know what is virtuous organically. So in a sense, you're right.



sorry... couldn't resist.


originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Blarneystoner




Which one is true? Your perspective or mine?


Neither and both.


Another rhetorical question... :-)
edit on 7-2-2019 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2019 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

I watched an interview with Ann Coulter once where she was talking about the theory of evolution. She told the interviewer that she believed the theory of evolution was bad science.

The interviewer then asked the logical question, 'what is your theory then?' Without batting an eye, she looked at him and said, "I don't have one, I'm not a scientist."

duh duh dum....




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   
yes and thats part of the issue... people who have no idea what they are talking about, thinking their opinions = knowledge. Ann Coulter is a prime example of such concept of when someone's religion mixed with education and general "I'm better than you" attitude, resulted in something quite frankly idiotic... but hey lets give her a voice speaking about evolution...
edit on 7-2-2019 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




It may have not even been discovered yet, but there is only one truth and one correct perspective. It


How can that be since all reality is a subjective experience.




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Our reality is a personal experience, shared by a group may be, but your perspective is yours alone.

Short of some form of multiple personality disorder, there is only your point of view.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Man, I hear you there. All of these people who simply memorize and regurgitate what mainstream tells them and they get this certificate telling them they are distinguished. Then they develop this attitude that attacks anything and everything that even challenges their solidified point of view. So much for open mindedness.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Everything we personally experience is subjective until consensus is reached, then it becomes objective and a shared objective reality.

Your axiom that all reality is a subjective experience, is not a view supported by Hylozoism.

There is a permanent reality that exist in all dimensions, composed from ever finer states of matter.

For those who’s consciousness is awake in these realms, they will experience an objective reality, as do we all, when we pass from this world to the next.

Remaining focused on objective reality in other worlds, becomes a critical skill. Consciousness can create anything, it is instant magic, it can be witnessed by others, and becomes an objective shared experience. It is clear to others however that this is your illusion and that you can get lost in it. They are still grounded in their own objective shared realities, which are solid and real in the dimension they exist in.

There are immutable laws that govern the entirety of creation, those laws are fixed across all dimensions of space, time is really the only illusion. Those laws are the truth, and there is nothing subjective about them.

Hylozoizm, departs from Eastern mysticism in a fundamental way, by declaring that we are not experiencing an illusion but a fixed objective reality... How could it be otherwise when we can reach consensus on our experiences. Creating a shared illusion is theatre and cinema but we all know that it is Hollywood.

Hylozoism declares that matter is a continuum, and that seven states of matter exist within each dimension. Science currently can detect four within our own physical dimension.

Our consciousness will become objectively aware of other dimensions as we evolve and our ability to achieve objective reality in the ever finer states of matter, is a natural progression for humanity.

I am sorry If I come across overly zealous, I didn't invent this, it is ancient knowledge and I feel a responsibility to convey that as accurately as I can, after studying the texts.




edit on 7-2-2019 by kennyb72 because: added info



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: kennyb72

Your own perspective is the correct and only one that matters for all intents and purpose where reality is concerned.

Point of fact there is only your own perspective, it being a rather personal experience.

Then there is empathy, however, that's a whole nother kettle of fish to consider, it does allow us to attempt to see other peoples point of view thus somewhat share there pain all the same.

Life is a very personal experience, that is the condition of being human. We are separated from each other for the purpose of developing uniqueness, something not possible in the Animal Kingdom.

Animals have individual emotional envelopes and a collective mental envelope, this informs them mostly of what they are in nature and their relationship to each other. A group intelligence that each animal can draw on.

Animals are completely in tune with their environment and each other. Rupert Sheldrake would describe this group awareness as Morphic Resonance. It is stronger in breeds for instance and its group soul contains far fewer individuals but that influence still expands across all species and animals in a hierarchical fashion.

Empathy demonstrates early signs of evolutionary development in humans and is still an essential developing quality in humanity in general. When everyone becomes empathic, then there will be no more wars, starvation, suffering, degradation to the human spirit.

Bring it on!



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

But we are animals, semi-clever monkeys of a sorts.

We are also an apex predator with a capacity for malice and evil that unrivaled in the animal kingdom.

Does nature display empathy?

Empathy or our capacity to empathize with others, has more to do with communication, and our ability to understand how others are feeling so we can respond appropriately to the situation. It is typically associated with social behavior.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake



But we are animals, semi-clever monkeys of a sorts.

We are also an apex predator with a capacity for malice and evil that unrivaled in the animal kingdom.

Does nature display empathy?

Empathy or our capacity to empathize with others, has more to do with communication, and our ability to understand how others are feeling so we can respond appropriately to the situation. It is typically associated with social behaviour


Humans are a species specifically designed to be the apex of creation on Earth.

We arrived over a period of millions of years in 6 root races each with sub races The current iteration of humanity is the most successful but even now some genetic upgrades are applied periodically. It is our vehicle to explore this physical density.

The very earliest humans used to reproduce by budding, some iterations where hermaphrodite, but eventually humans became separate sexes.

The Animal Kingdom share much with us, not surprisingly because we are made from the same stuff.

Monkeys, horses, cats, dogs and elephants all enter the human path of evolution, other animals reach a stage where they continue their evolution in another dimension and enter the Deva evolutionary path.

It is worth noting that every planet in our solar system has life, it may not be in our physical form but there are also several planets in our solar system that are not present in our physical dimension.

Nature is an efficient biological machine. Empathy doesn’t enter into that process, You could describe nature as a template. It provides a set of conditions and life adapts to those conditions very quickly.

An empath doesn’t require verbal communication to read a person state of mind, he/she experiences it acutely for themselves. It is an essential quality that all humanity will attain eventually. It is difficult to deal with, but it becomes a way of life for most, which is as it should be.

Modern Evolution theory is lacking insight into the conscious nature of life and attempts to explain everything in a reductionist way.

To suggest that we arrived at this point by random mutation is laughable and defies all logic.




top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join