The Corrupted Sciences

Originally posted by Cyberbian
He missed the biggest deadly sin of them all. Propriatary Knowledge.

A very few own much of the key knowledge, usually it is corporations who are loathe to share. Sometimes it is nations, who operate through the corporations. Sometimes the knowledge is simply lost over time because there is no profit base for the particular company in maintaining the knowledge.

I would suggest one more possible candidate for the list, disinformation.

Yes, great point Cyberian, Proprietary Knowledge is one of the greatest roadblocks that we have faced over the years. It has culminated in the 'Patenting' of DNA sequences.

And yes disinformation is also one of the worst perpetrators.

Good Post, a star.

'Religious experience' is only proof of concept to those who feel subjective personal experiences are proof of anything. The feeling of the presence of God, for instance, can be produced by the brain when people will it to happen and/or going in to a trance from worship or prayer. The explanation they accept is that something spiritual is going on when in reality they are pretty much brainwashing them selves - speaking as an ex-fundamentalist.

Proof is person-relative. What one accepts as proof, another might not. Billions more accept religious experience than scientific 'proof'.

Subjective evidence is useless because it's not demonstrable. What is demonstrable is that Science delivers.

As I explained above, it is only if you believe in science that you conclude that science 'delivers'. If you don't, you are under no such ideological obligation.

The fact that over 1000's of years, people have held 1000's of belief structures and therefore 1000's of different subjective 'proofs'. They can't all be right because they contradict - so they aren't proof at all - but they can all be wrong.

Only if one believes in the scientific myth that a single theory can explain everything. If one believes in pluralist ontology then one has no such ideological obligation.

The method is only as good as its application by scientists. If scientists rigidly followed the method then no one would ever listen to them or accept them as an authority, because they'd have to admit that no scientific theory can ever be confirmed, only refuted.

They say that anyway, it's part of the scientific definition of 'theory'. To confirm anything, one needs absolute truths. Instead scientists follow the evidence making established theories more and more accurate.

Hang on, above you were saying science produced technology, and that it delivers. Now you're rejecting the absolute truth of your prior arguments.

This is self-contradictory, and thus by your own measures and standards wrong.

Sardonic images prove nothing except for your own preconceived approach to this question. Science involves faith. Do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? No, of course you don't. You ask any scientist if the sun will rise tomorrow and they'll say 'of course it will, it always does'.

You have replaced your religious fundamentalism with scientific fundamentalist, swallowing the whole baggage about technology, about cause and effect, about the authority of the scientific method (a human creation just like the Bible) and about how science is somehow radically different from religion.

All of which is patently untrue.

reply to post by Vinciguerra

Someone throws crap at your house. You don't see it but you know it happened. Outside you find a man with a bucket of crap and crap on his hands and you accuse him of throwing crap at your house.

To ignore demonstrable evidence and theories that produce accurate, testable predictions is what you are saying. "Oh you are just swallowing worthless/false scientific dogma. You follow science as a religion." You say.
This kind of unpalatable anti-intellectualism is tantamount to that man saying to you that he did not throw the poo at your house and that the evidence to the contrary is worthless because you didn't see it happen and can't prove it.

Oh and I'm sorry if that picture offended you but I don't particularly care. It detail the scientific method vs religious belief. Just because it's in flowchart (or so-called 'sardonic') form doesn't make it any less valid.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Vinciguerra

 

Someone throws crap at your house. You don't see it but you know it happened. Outside you find a man with a bucket of crap and crap on his hands and you accuse him of throwing crap at your house.

This has never happened.

To ignore demonstrable evidence and theories that produce accurate, testable predictions is what you are saying.

No, I'm arguing that the metaphysics of 'demonstrable evidence' that produces 'accurate, testable predictions' is no better than that of believing in God.

That you're seeking to define me pejoratively speaks volumes for your intellectual and emotional maturity.

"Oh you are just swallowing worthless/false scientific dogma. You follow science as a religion." You say.

Pretty much, since I'm raising philosophical objections and meeting with diversionary tactics and insults.

This kind of unpalatable anti-intellectualism is tantamount to that man saying to you that he did not throw the poo at your house and that the evidence to the contrary is worthless because you didn't see it happen and can't prove it.

Unpalatable - I'm sorry bringing logic into a discussion about different forms of knowledge and experience offends your palate, i.e. your tastes, but it's irrelevant to the actual question here.

Oh and I'm sorry if that picture offended you but I don't particularly care.

It doesn't offend me. I think it's precisely the sort of primary school distinction one might predict a dogmatic atheist would make, since it is part of the atheist dogma, besides which it is bull# as I've demonstrated several times.

It detail the scientific method vs religious belief. Just because it's in flowchart (or so-called 'sardonic') form doesn't make it any less valid.

True. The fact that it is bull# makes it less valid.

Tell me, are you familiar with the philosophy of science and religion? If you aren't then it's fine, I'm just wondering why it is you consistently avoid my philosophical points and try to turn this into a slanging match.

reply to post by Vinciguerra

I'm not avoiding anything. You say that science is no greater of a faith than any religious faith. I am saying that you are wrong.

Religious faith is about supposing a nature of the supernatural and then taking arrogant pride in that belief without evidence - as faith is defined. No religion is as demonstrably provable than any other, so at best they are no more than conjecture.

The scientific method is about taking abstract ideas for the explanation of phenomena and testing them to build accurate theories in order to build knowledge about our universe. Theories are demonstrably provable by in some cases the technologies they inspire. Imagine the world we'd live in if it weren't for Tesla and Edison contributing to our understanding of electricity. You wouldn't have a computer with which to spout your beliefs that science is less than or equal to religion.

Unpalatable - I'm sorry bringing logic into a discussion about different forms of knowledge and experience offends your palate, i.e. your tastes, but it's irrelevant to the actual question here.

1stly, thanks for explaining to me the words I am using, my tiny science pea-brain can't handle them without help.
2nd, saying that demonstrable theories, evidence, facts and scientific consensus is just as good of a form of proof as the subjective experience of the religious mind is far from logical, it's almost the antithesis of logic - and it leaves a fowl taste in the mouth.

Different forms of knowledge?! Knowledge doesn't come in different forms, knowledge isn't an umbrella term.

This has never happened.

Allow me to introduce to you the concept of 'hypotheticals'.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Welfhard]

I don't agree with his list...

Who exactly, established that they were actual "problems of modern science"?

Quite frankly, the scientific method is proven, hence the significant technological/scientific sophistication we've enjoyed over the past centuries.

Originally posted by ChronMan
I don't agree with his list...

Who exactly, established that they were actual "problems of modern science"?

Quite frankly, the scientific method is proven, hence the significant technological/scientific sophistication we've enjoyed over the past centuries.

Who has to establish that they are "problems"?
Do you think that science should examine itself, like an inside investigation ?
I am sure the only answer they will ever come up with is, that it is all OK, and that the grants will keep flowing.
This scrutiny has actually occurred many times in the past and in all instances there was much back slapping and payoffs and the freight train kept rolling.

Yes the scientific method isn't under scrutiny here, only the outcomes and the erroneous basis of such methods.
The technological sophistication that you speak of has given us nuclear weapons, a 'very' sick ecosystem and a system of 'peer' pressure where alternative theories other than those deemed 'righteous', are ground into the dust like vermin.

Originally posted by starwarp2000

Originally posted by ChronMan
I don't agree with his list...

Who exactly, established that they were actual "problems of modern science"?

Quite frankly, the scientific method is proven, hence the significant technological/scientific sophistication we've enjoyed over the past centuries.

Who has to establish that they are "problems"?
Do you think that science should examine itself, like an inside investigation ?
I am sure the only answer they will ever come up with is, that it is all OK, and that the grants will keep flowing.
This scrutiny has actually occurred many times in the past and in all instances there was much back slapping and payoffs and the freight train kept rolling.

Yes the scientific method isn't under scrutiny here, only the outcomes and the erroneous basis of such methods.
The technological sophistication that you speak of has given us nuclear weapons, a 'very' sick ecosystem and a system of 'peer' pressure where alternative theories other than those deemed 'righteous', are ground into the dust like vermin.

Science explains how, its job isn't to explain why.

Can you explain why the universe exists, why energy exists, why atoms exist?

Do you know of anyone - or system - who can provide a substantiated explanation?

Originally posted by ChronMan
Science explains how, its job isn't to explain why.

Can you explain why the universe exists, why energy exists, why atoms exist?

Do you know of anyone - or system - who can provide a substantiated explanation?

Ah!!!, this is the whole point. Are you missing the posts?

Science only looks at the processes of nature and ignores the causes and the effects. Science instead should be looking at the WHOLE THREE!, as this is the only 'real' science. Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

I could make a conjecture on your question about why!, but I, or you don't have the necessary data to make this conclusion. This is why we should be analyzing more important things and not chasing 'non important' things like that.
We exist, here and now, and that is all that matters.




[edit on 3-8-2009 by starwarp2000]

Originally posted by starwarp2000


Ah!!!, this is the whole point. Are you missing the posts?

Science only looks at the processes of nature and ignores the causes and the effects. Science instead should be looking at the WHOLE THREE!, as this is the only 'real' science. Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

perhaps science is limited and you shouldn't expect perfection from using the method? knowing more is always preferrable, it just doesn't necessarily happen that way.