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.

 

Modern Science - The Cult of the Mundane

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The mainstream scientific community is very biased against certain subjects.

These include extraterrestrial presence on Earth, and to some extent, intelligent life anywhere but Earth in the Universe, any kind of life after death, and most conspiracy theories.

In many cases, this is just an honest mistake on the scientists' part, as they assume aliens CAN'T travel to Earth in reasonable time because of the speed of light limit, or they think that consciousness HAS to be a product of the brain.

Sometimes though I feel that scientists do not want to believe that there is anything more intelligent than humans, and human scientists. A universe of mathematics and superstrings is far more interesting to them than a universe full of intelligent life, but to 99.9% of human beings it's far less interesting.

There's far more evidence for space aliens than for superstrings anyway. String theory is basically just mental masturbation - it is possible, but so are a zillion other explanations of how the Universe works. It can explain things, sure, but Occam's Razor is totally bent against it. Bent far more against it than it is against alien visitation to Earth.

Many ufologists have noted that science takes absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. But it's even worse than that: science does not acknowledge the huge amount of evidence there is for alien visitation.

UFOs and abductions are a fleeting, rare phenomena, and it is for that reason that they are not an established scientific fact. Also, the evidence we have is unreliable because of trust issues and technology.

A real photo is worth nothing to science when it could be a fake. A photo that's blurry will be said to be a weather balloon, etc, a good photo will be dismissed as a fake. It's a catch-22.

Eyewitness of course does nothing for science either.

What would it take people to realize aliens are here? Presidential admission? Apparently even that isn't enough. Carter admitted they were here back in the 70s.

Science is a religion to itself, it is the worship of human ingenuity, and of a pointless universe. It has become a vehicle for Atheism, and no longer lives to its principles.




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
If I'm a scientist, doesn't that mean I'm interested in extending the boundaries of provable knowledge?

I've looked at lots of ancient art supposedly depicting astronauts. But when seen in context there always seems to be a possible explanation with earthly origins.

I've looked at lots of pictures and videos which, even with my limited knowledge of Photoshop and film editing, I could easily fake up myself.

I've heard lots of stories of sightings, but few have an iota of evidence to support them.

So where's the provable knowledge?

There's nothing wrong with believing in flying saucers and aliens, and some scientists do. But, for as long as they are scientists, they will not confuse belief with knowledge.

How would you prove to a scientist that aliens have flown in our skies, walked on this earth, and abducted humans?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
If I'm a scientist, doesn't that mean I'm interested in extending the boundaries of provable knowledge?

I've looked at lots of ancient art supposedly depicting astronauts. But when seen in context there always seems to be a possible explanation with earthly origins.

I've looked at lots of pictures and videos which, even with my limited knowledge of Photoshop and film editing, I could easily fake up myself.

I've heard lots of stories of sightings, but few have an iota of evidence to support them.

So where's the provable knowledge?

There's nothing wrong with believing in flying saucers and aliens, and some scientists do. But, for as long as they are scientists, they will not confuse belief with knowledge.

How would you prove to a scientist that aliens have flown in our skies, walked on this earth, and abducted humans?






Again, what is proof, since any recordings mean nothing?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Again, what is proof, since any recordings mean nothing?


You can't say science is biased against belief in aliens if you are admitting there is no proof of aliens. Science should not accept anything without proof. SETI is an indication that scientists are at least interested in finding proof.

I've had experiences that prove things to me that I can't ask others to believe, because I have no proof to show. Them's the breaks, as they say.
All we can do is keep looking and learning, and ignore those who try to trash our beliefs just because they can't be proved scientifically - yet.

I wish you well in your search.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Again, what is proof, since any recordings mean nothing?


SETI is an indication that scientists are at least interested in finding proof.




Actually I think they're some of the greatest offenders in close-mindedness. They have admitted the reason they haven't found anything is because the signals become unreadable after more than 100 light years.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Well i think using the term scientist is way to broad of a term.



A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method

See so all someone has to do is stand up and say I am a scientist because they fit into the above. There are so many branches of science. Chemists, biologists,astronomers and even those have sub specialized fields. That is one of the great things about the subject. An astronomer could say he thinks aliens are real while a chemist could say highly unprobable and a physicist could care less.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Actually I think they're some of the greatest offenders in close-mindedness. They have admitted the reason they haven't found anything is because the signals become unreadable after more than 100 light years.


How does admitting that, presuming that's true, make a person close-minded?
What would you have a scientist do to prove to you she is open-minded?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 

One of the biggest problems historically has been the Western scientific imperical ego, i.e. that if it was not discovered or proven by Western science then it is not proven. Ancient oriental knowledge, pre-dating the likes of Galileo for example by 3000 years already considered the Earth to be round and that the Sun was the centre of the solar system. Look to the old vedic astrological texts for proof of this or even consider the Egyptian culture of the time.

Given that our five physical senses can only perceive 5% of vibrational frequencies and that 90% of our DNA is considered junk (inactive) I think we can consider the very strong possibility the existence of things way beyond our current limited concepts, and step by step we do make progress, even if sometimes it is just an imperical justification of ancient knowledge.

Regarding proof and faking of photographic evidence, then this accusation can be leveled at both hoaxers, disinformation agents and government bodies. Just as the former make assumptions from blurry objects, the latter appear to be photo-shopping blur into officially released images to cover certain things up.

Beyond this, there is a certain pressure put on scientists who come up with challenges to conventional theories, with threats to bursaries and career. Just as the church did so in the middle ages, corporates and governments do now.

Being of a scientific nature and inquiring mind only accepting things that are proven, why is Einstein's theory of relativity so widely accepted when it is fundamentally nothing more than a theory that has never been able to be proven?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Galaxie182
One of the biggest problems historically has been the Western scientific imperical ego, i.e. that if it was not discovered or proven by Western science then it is not proven. Ancient oriental knowledge, pre-dating the likes of Galileo for example by 3000 years already considered the Earth to be round and that the Sun was the centre of the solar system. Look to the old vedic astrological texts for proof of this or even consider the Egyptian culture of the time.

Science has it's place. Something not being proven to western science merely means that. It does not mean something is untrue, but it does mean scientific theories cannot be based on it.

By the way, I read and commented on the entire collection of the Vedas that a friend of my parents owned when I was 13 - 14, as a punishment for rebellion in school.
Being a very precocious and spiritually minded kid, it was the sweetest "punishment" anyone could have thought up for me. it was definitely a moulding force on my life.



Given that our five physical senses can only perceive 5% of vibrational frequencies and that 90% of our DNA is considered junk (inactive) I think we can consider the very strong possibility the existence of things way beyond our current limited concepts, and step by step we do make progress, even if sometimes it is just an imperical justification of ancient knowledge.

Actually the junk DNA issue has been researched, and scientists think it probably is not junk at all.

Personally, I am quite sure of the existence of things way beyond our current limited concepts. I love science, but I do not over-rate its importance. There is a great deal that can be examined through personal endeavour, but is presently not amenable to science.

I hope that one day humans will have an understanding of where the material world fits in with the world that we can't explain materially.



Regarding proof and faking of photographic evidence, then this accusation can be leveled at both hoaxers, disinformation agents and government bodies. Just as the former make assumptions from blurry objects, the latter appear to be photo-shopping blur into officially released images to cover certain things up.

Agreed. I could tell you some tales about both sceptics and hoaxers.
I find it particularly annoying when someone claims to be a sceptic, yet never uses their brains, just parrots the official line and always supports the big corporation against the little guy.
- Often with fallacious arguments.
That type of scepticism has nothing to do with science.



Beyond this, there is a certain pressure put on scientists who come up with challenges to conventional theories, with threats to bursaries and career. Just as the church did so in the middle ages, corporates and governments do now.

Yes, people compete in all fields for adulation and for money.



Being of a scientific nature and inquiring mind only accepting things that are proven, why is Einstein's theory of relativity so widely accepted when it is fundamentally nothing more than a theory that has never been able to be proven?

If you are under the impression I only accept what is proven to science you don't know me. What can be proved to science and what can be proved to an individual through their own experiences are two separate, though interlinked, sets of ideas.

Regarding Einstein's theory of relativity, some aspects of it have been proven, and it has been found to be a useful tool in understanding events.

However it's like Galileo's theories, which work well in their place, but give inaccurate results when used in a more complex environment. Einstein's theory will probably always be useful, but may have to give way to other theories as studies in quantum physics advance. There are already scientists coming up with relevant theories in that area which are being taken seriously by enough people in the scientific community to get them tested.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Kailassa, explain to me how there is no evidence of alien presence.

There is a lot more evidence for it than there is for string theory, and quite a few other things scientists look into as a strong possibility.

I'm not even asking science to accept it as fact, I'm just asking them to stop laughing at the idea of UFOs being here and telling us their SETI program is the sensible way to find aliens.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Kailassa, explain to me how there is no evidence of alien presence.

Why would you ask that of me?
I have never said there is no evidence of alien presence.
I have said there is no proof of alien presence.

Evidence does not equal proof.

String theory is not accepted as proven by all scientists. It does, however, make predictions which can be proved, and it enables solutions to be found for certain problems.

To prove any theory scientifically you must be able to extrapolate it to make predictions, and be able to test these predictions to see if they hold true, and have independent people perform the same tests and get the same results. Like it or not, that is science.

Laughing at an unproven theory, or at the people who believe it, is not science. Not all scientists laugh at alien theories, and not all people who laugh at alien theories are scientists.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 

The problem with western science was its intellectual ego where it believed anything written by any other culture could not be accurate of have any basis. Unfortunately this led to a long period of 'reinventing the wheel' where what they have discovered has only served to give greater credence and evidence to these things that people had already had personal knowledge of centuries before. Quantum physics here being something very important in sustaining what were once only considered mere philosophical beliefs.

There is a saying about Mind in Heart and Heart in Mind, but my own observations of Western society is the significant lack of heart in these things. Just because something has not been measured or repeated in laboratory conditions does not mean that the individual experience is not real or sufficient personal evidence for the reality of things.

You are right I dont know you, neither do I make any judgement against you, merely giving my own thoughts on this excessive burden of proof and distraction via hoax and disinformation that sometimes cause mass negation of any authentic personal experience.

As you correctly said we have no concrete proof of alien presence, but the half evidence, masses of unexplained phenomena, apparant cover up by the scientific/government bodies will always leave much to speculation. Especially when you look at the technological advancements in the last 150 years and encounter the testimonies of such people as Phil Schneider. From a scientific point of view, to even consider the non-existent of alien life is implausible.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Kailassa, explain to me how there is no evidence of alien presence.



Evidence does not equal proof.

String theory is not accepted as proven by all scientists. It does, however, make predictions which can be proved, and it enables solutions to be found for certain problems.

Not all scientists laugh at alien theories, and not all people who laugh at alien theories are scientists.


Not all but most of them.

I don't know - what IS proof?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


The idea you present here, that science has a built-in bias, is a major point of contention for me. I am a layman, but I have had a vested interest in science all my life. (Incidentally, I also suspect that Earth has been and continues to be visited by "aliens" and that many governments know about them, but that's a different story.) It bothers me to no end how many people misunderstand science; and that is not to say any particular body of scientific knowledge, but even the basic fact of what science IS.

SCIENCE IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Detractors of the mainstream scientific community tend to act as if there's some international church of science or something, where scientific theories and axioms are enshrined unchanging to be worshipped by the drooling masses. But understand this: the only people who view it this way are those who misunderstand it. I repeat: science is the scientific method. This relies on observation (requiring something to observe), hypothesis (requiring sufficient data out of which to form a hypothesis), experiment (requiring the design of an experiment) and repetition of said experiment to corroborate results. THE UFO PHENOMENON PROVIDES NONE OF THIS. Hearsay is not evidence. Neither is a couple of minutes of out of focus digital video. For these reasons, scientists can form no theory of the phenomenon. For many, it is more convenient to act as if it does not exist from a scientific standpoint, because from that standpoint IT DOES NOT. That is not to say that if provided with evidence and the opportunity to design a repeatable experiment, the position wouldn't change. It would. But that would require the UFO phenomenon to be observed on a regular basis where data could be compiled and a theory could be formed. UFOs are unpredictable. That places them beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Do not confuse SCIENCE with SCIENTISTS. Science is a very broad term, but a consistent one. It is, by definition, bias-free and open to having its theories changed through the observation of new data. Scientists, of course, are people. They are subject to things like arrogance, mule-headedness and groundless assumptions. But these are failings of human beings, not of science itself. Scientists who treat science like a religion are doing it wrong.

When UFOs submit themselves to consistent, repeated observation by scientists, then science will have something to say about the phenomenon. Until then, it must remain on the fringe, and we must accept that.

------------------

Also, for those who think that science somehow drains the vigor and wonderment out of life, or saps the world of spiritual meaning, I believe you are missing the point entirely. When understood correctly, scientific knowledge of a thing ought to deepen and enrich one's total experience of it. Many scientists are spiritual people, and many spiritual people have a deep understanding and respect for science. If you view the two as mutually exclusive or antagonistic, then you are sorely mistaken.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Science is a religion to itself, it is the worship of human ingenuity, and of a pointless universe. It has become a vehicle for Atheism, and no longer lives to its principles.

What the human ingenuity that worshipped by Science?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Not that I don't think science has any bias, I do believe that science has a bias. However, I feel that such a bias is necessary. If anything even hinted at as being a scientific fact could become such without experimentation and proof, then how would anything in our world be qualified as a fact anymore?

 


Take aliens for example:

• Scientists do believe that some form of sentient life exists elsewhere in our Universe. The mathematical statistics say that not only is it possible, but it is also highly probable.

• Someone like John Keel (famous 1970s paranormal investigator) believes that aliens are inter-dimensional beings from history. That the faeries and gods of ancient cultures have become the aliens of today.

• A third person - representing many users on ATS - believe that aliens are some kind of spiritual guide who grants us psychic powers, infinite emotional connectedness, and metaphysical insight into the "meaning of it all".

• A fourth person - also representing a fraction of ATS users - believes that aliens are evil Reptillian overlords who have enslaved the human species. David Icke is famous for putting this belief into widespread publication.

 


Those four are just a tiny pool of the alien mythos floating around ATS alone. This hardly includes all of the beliefs about aliens the world over.

How exactly are we supposed to reconcile these drastically different beliefs? Scientists belief extra-terrestrial life exists, somewhere, somehow. Keel's believe aliens are our gods and faeries and spirits. Neo-spiritualists believe aliens are our families and spiritual guides. Icke's believe aliens are our alien overlords who need to be usurped.

What is the appropriate way to determine which "alien" is the real alien? Evidence.

 


Now, I've seen you pose the question "what is evidence", so here you go:

Evidence is any collection, or body of data, that verifies, proves and substantiates a claim into physical reality. This collection of data allows anyone who can collect the necessary materials to duplicate the experiments or claims themselves and receive the same results.

Evidence is the foundation for everything we know to be real and in existence. This keyboard I am typing to you on exists in solid, 3 dimensional reality. How do we know this? I can invite you over and let you type my next message on it. I can then do that for an infinite number of people who wish to verify it for themselves.

The problem with aliens and conspiracies and other things of that nature is this: people who believe these things insist that the lack-of-evidence-to-the-contrary means their theory must be right. In other words:

There's no evidence that the Illuminati New World Order is not working with the Reptilian Overlords. So it must mean that they are.

This is bad science. In order to verify conspiracies and other pseudo-scientific claims one must present evidence for the theory, not a lack-of-evidence-against-it. Meaning:

Theory A, explored through experimentation A, produces result A.
Here is how experiment A was conducted, so you can do it too.
Theory B, explored through experimentation B, produces result B.
Here is how experiment B was conducted, so you can do it too.

Then, if science does follow your steps, and receives the same results, it will begin to revise itself to include the possibility that your theory is correct. History and all other manner of human studies included.

Comprende?

~ Wandering Scribe




top topics



 
3

log in

join