The Anti-Science Comments On A.T.S

It's true scientists don't know everything but they don't claim to do so.

It's true there are fraudsters, though that's a very small minority.

Ask yourself this, where would you be without science? Sending each other smoke signals instead of that little keyboard you have in front of you? I've seen so much scorn towards them on this site that I'm half inclined to think people speak out against scientists in general just to make themselves feel smarter or is it people just taking the benefits of science for granted?

Science has healed our sicknesses, it's allowed us to see into deep space, it's allowed us to communicate worldwide and made the earth a lot smaller by doing so. Science has benefited us endlessly.

I'm not naive, I know it's also caused misery in certain situations, but you anti-science commenters still have a lot to thank them for.

Originally posted by 0rbital
It's true scientists don't know everything but they don't claim to do so.

It's true there are fraudsters, though that's a very small minority.

Ask yourself this, where would you be without science? Sending each other smoke signals instead of that little keyboard you have in front of you? I've seen so much scorn towards them on this site that I'm half inclined to think people speak out against scientists in general just to make themselves feel smarter or is it people just taking the benefits of science for granted?

Science has healed our sicknesses, it's allowed us to see into deep space, it's allowed us to communicate worldwide and made the earth a lot smaller by doing so. Science has benefited us endlessly.

I'm not naive, I know it's also caused misery in certain situations, but you anti-science commenters still have a lot to thank them for.

I'll give you a star and flag because I have someone to argue with

I have nothing against true scientists that research. I have problems with science that built the atom bomb, how much did everyone work to pay for the arsenals we and other countries have. It ended a war but started a cold war where everyone was worried about getting nuked. The nuclear power plants just made it cheaper to make things we really don't need and put us at risk for accidents because some were built in the wrong spots...sounds like risk assessment was not done by the people that built these things.

I like the internet, it is a good inexpensive resource for me to study things. If you look at what science created you will find good and bad things. Plastic is a bad creation of science as are a lot of the bad chemicals being released into nature.

Look at all the planes over head, is that necessary, it is polluting our atmosphere, maybe if we plant some trees up there it will help.

Science has gone overboard on food chemistry. Science has made it so everyone has a phone on them. That is not bad but it is a distraction when driving or walking. People don't memorize how to get to the store anymore, they use their gps phones. We are getting to reliant on this stuff, and it is making us fat and increasing our health care costs because we are not moving around enough as a society. The remote control for the tv was a mistake.

So I question....is all the stuff we think we need really necessary?

"Science" Consists of multiple disciplines across many fields some more advanced than others, Some on here have moral qualms with some branches of science that are legitimate concerns.

There is however a general lack of respect to intellectualism in general, calm reasoned and logical responses get less attention than irrational ones.

But that sadly is a symptom of the times we live in.

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not your believe it.
~ Neil DeGasse Tyson

OP don't even waste your time with them, there's no point. Seems ATS has been flooded with these people over the past 4 years or so, like allot of mainstream media, bible bashing, religious loving, homophobic, far right, far left people have joined ATS and are not here learn - They just spew ignorance and avoid actual facts. I'v debated loads of time with these people but I just give in, half my posts are from arguing (which would of been debating & learning a few years ago)

Science for the sake of Science, development and research? There is no purer thing for people to be working their lives in, in my view. Many things equal, but none better.

Science for the sake of supporting political agenda or to find ways to make living people into dead ones? Well..that's where I think science creates it's own backlash and nightmares. I'm just sorry science well beyond those who do the dirty deeds gets whacked by the results of them.

reply to post by rickymouse




Well, it's greedy business men and women that give science the bad side of it's image as they're the people who fund the selfish side of science, though it wouldn't be possible if people in general weren't prepared to use the final product. The positive side of science has change millions of lives for the better is all I'm saying.

Originally posted by benrl

"Science" Consists of multiple disciplines across many fields some more advanced than others, Some on here have moral qualms with some branches of science that are legitimate concerns.

There is however a general lack of respect to intellectualism in general, calm reasoned and logical responses get less attention than irrational ones.

But that sadly is a symptom of the times we live in.

edit on 20-8-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

My biggest gripe with science is that they have to acquire funding which causes a misinterpretation of the evidence some times. Competing for funding in science makes it more of a business venture than it does science. It is not really the scientists fault, it is the way societies are set up. I see that scientists rarely want to challenge social consensus or big businesses. That I understand, I used to hate to challenge either of those myself.

Originally posted by 0rbital
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Well, it's greedy business men and women that give science the bad side of it's image as they're the people who fund the selfish side of science, though it wouldn't be possible if people in general weren't prepared to use the final product. The positive side of science has change millions of lives for the better is all I'm saying.

Gees, I was trying to get a little arguing but I have to agree with you on this. It is not really science that is the problem, it is the misuse of science that is the problem.

Originally posted by 0rbital
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Well, it's greedy business men and women that give science the bad side of it's image as they're the people who fund the selfish side of science, though it wouldn't be possible if people in general weren't prepared to use the final product. The positive side of science has change millions of lives for the better is all I'm saying.

Funding for science tends to come from three places, Government, Business, Charitable grants and giving.

Guess which ones win out for the most funding, so a scientist who wants to do good has to whore themselves around to get grants etc.

It really is a sick society that puts education last in its priorities, the reason you see a "science" backlash is because of whose funding what.

I star you but I do not know how humanity would have turned out if seeking had gone another way than what it did. What if science is becoming dogmatic and do not allow for seeking things outside what the 90% believe is true. There will always be single people who have noticed and understood things that others have not noticed about reality.

The anti-science is normally about science being to slow to suit the people who push hard down the rabbit hole and want to experience things that are outside Platos cave.

I give you an example. Say that chakras (or something similar) truly exists and that the old mystics was not stupid when they used sounds to activate them. What is the limit of the third eye? Is it possible to telepathically get information and store information in a collective library for humankind? What if humans instead in ancient times had put more effort into spiritual awareness of all instead of pushing for technical knowledge.

Would humanity have evolved differently if they where telepathic and would it have gone faster than the one single mind thing getting/creating ideas with it's subconscious?

Knowledge is neither good or bad but it is how it is used that is good or bad (or from my point egoistic or for the good of all).

reply to post by benrl


Science and Technology are very important.

How else will the Government keep us safe and under control?

Originally posted by Metallicus
reply to post by benrl

 

Science and Technology are very important.

How else will the Government keep us safe and under control?

Yet it's science and technology that allows us to fight back.

Originally posted by 0rbital

Originally posted by Metallicus
reply to post by benrl

 

Science and Technology are very important.

How else will the Government keep us safe and under control?

Yet it's science and technology that allows us to fight back.

You know, I have this thought that the Civil Rights movement would never have happened if the Internet existed.

It acts like a blow off valve for social ills, to many people, to many voices, all with different Causes, All just a little different.

If it was around back than you would of had everyone talking but no one doing, look at the fate of Occupy, or any other modern reform movements.

The internet perpetuates division while seeming to unite.

reply to post by 0rbital


Find me one person here who thinks we'd be better off without science. Just one. If there are people who think humans would be better off without science, then I'd suggest they might be mentally ill or just really, really stupid.

I don't think there are "anti-science" threads here. Most of the threads which you are talking about aren't claiming that science hasn't benefited mankind. They are arguing that science sometimes makes spurious claims which turn out to be wrong or unfounded. Other times science can become embroiled in politics or other human agendas, in which case it ceases to be unbiased (and by definition, scientific) and only serves to further said agendas. These threads are meant to invoke thought, and lead to certain philosophical questions, and do not claim that humanity would be better off without the contributions science has made.

Personally, I have to question your motives for even authoring this thread, as it seems like a star/flag grab to me. You mentioned that sometimes there are frauds within the scientific community but they are in the minority, so I think I have an idea of which thread you are taking contention with, and it's author never claimed even once that he/she is anti-science.

As has been said, It isn't science that is the problem. It is those affiliated with and within the disciplines, who have less than honorable intentions, that are the problem. Nevertheless...

Science does not now, nor will it ever have, all the answers, or the questions for that matter. Science changes daily, as it should. Therein lies the greatest strength of science. Change and growth. Which also happen to be its greatest weakness. The best explanation today, will go out the window tomorrow.

Science is what it is. It is people on both sides of the argument, that make it what it isn't.

What science is
What science is not

I love science, but I hate capitalistic science.

Science doesn't work well in our capitalistic world, discoveries are suppressed and research is determined by potential profit.

Science should be 100% purely socialist funded and all scientific discoveries should be free to all and unable to be patented.

The only way capitalism should enter is when companies use these discoveries to deliver it to the public, the company that can do that in the most efficient manner wins...not the company that can buy up the most patents to suppress competing discoveries.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Personally, I have to question your motives for even authoring this thread, as it seems like a star/flag grab to me. You mentioned that sometimes there are frauds within the scientific community but they are in the minority, so I think I have an idea of which thread you are taking contention with, and it's author never claimed even once that he/she is anti-science.

I have to question your obsession with stars and flags after that comment and also that thread link in your sig. If I wanted stars and flags I would just create a thread entitled ''The Change, Can You Feel It?'' or ''I Am From Planet Bong...Ask Me A Question'' or something similar, I'd get flags and stars galore then. This thread is about the many people and many different threads I've seen showing contempt for scientists in general.

This rant was about no one thread in particular so I don't know what thread you think I'm taking contention with.

reply to post by 0rbital

ROFL! "think rationally and use logic says the hater..."

It's true scientists don't know everything but they don't claim to do so.

not that you can tell from some of scientism devotees herein
their trolli*COUGH* arguments against those posting on spiritual and esoteric threads
are not even original, having been lifted straight from the Canon Episcopi

Some wicked women, perverted by the devil, seduced by illusions and phantasms of demons, believe and profess themselves in the hours of night, to ride upon certain beastes with Diana, the goddess of pagans, and an innumerable multitude of women, and in the silence of the dead of night to traverse great spaces of earth, and to obey her commands as of their mistress, and to be summoned to her service on certain nights.But I wish it were they alone who perished in their faithlessness and did not draw many with them into the destruction of infidelity. For an innumerable multitude, deceived by this false opinion, believe this to be true, and so believing, wander from the right faith and are invalued in the error of the pagans...
Wherefore the priests throughout their churches should preach with all insistence... that they know this to be false and, that such phantasms are imposed and sent by the malignant spirit... who deludes them in dreams...

also there is a fundamental sickness behind science of the baconian school

Following the expulsion of the philosophers from Syrian Edessa in 489 AD and from Athens in 529 AD, the philosophers had found refuge in what was then the Persian Empire, and at that Academy they pursued their calling. Then this knowledge passed to the Islamic Arabs, and science of a particular bent reached a high development under them, while Europe was in the "Dark Ages". Only gradually, over many centuries, did this science pass over to Europe, where it developed into the modern scientific revolution.

Again, the trend of modern science, as it has in fact developed, is Ahrimanic. The direct ancestor of scientific materialism was this Arabian science, which was itself derived from the Academy of Jundi Sabur. Thus, on the other side of the 333 AD midpoint from the Birth in Palestine was the rise of an active materialistic, anti-Christian world view in Jundi Sabur.

Occult history (as given by Steiner) reveals how this came about: Sorat intended to approach physical manifestation in 666 AD at Jundi Sabur, and to bestow upon the philosophers there a super-human knowledge. This knowledge was to consist of everything that mankind, under the plan of the regular Gods, was to learn through its own efforts by the height of the present, Consciousness Soul Epoch.

This epoch began in 1413 AD, so its midpoint will be 2493 AD. In other words, Sorat wanted to give to mankind, prematurely and without the requisite human effort and experience, the knowledge that would be right and healthy for mankind to achieve through work and evolution by the middle of the Third Millennium. The regular Gods' plan for the Consciousness Soul Epoch is for mankind to acquire, through self-education and self-discipline, the free, conscious, individualized human personality. If the mankind of the Seventh Century had been given this advanced knowledge at that immature stage of development, when people could not think in full consciousness, the result would have been disastrous.

Just consider how much evil mankind has done with the science we have acquired up to now, at our present stage of maturity (or immaturity), and then try to imagine what the relatively primitive people of the Seventh Century would have done with the science of 2493 AD.

This picture is bad enough, but we need to recall Steiner's occult insights to begin to get the whole picture. If Sorat had succeeded, Men would have lost the possibility of developing our true nature, and would have become egotistic, animalistic automata, with no possibility of further development. We would have become earth-bound, and the earth could never then pass over to the Jupiter, Venus, and Vulcan stages.

The normal Gods' plan would have been seriously hindered, and Men would have lost their due and timely opportunity to become Spirits of Freedom and Love. -- However, the rise of Islam thwarted this plan of Sorat. It is a deep, mysterious paradox that Islam, which was, and is, opposed to Christianity in many ways, also in effect worked jointly with the Christ-impulse in history, by blanketing, by "skimming the cream off", this Sorat-science, and by watering it down.

Still, this science survived, and has worked on into the present day, but the worst was averted, for those times. The weakened Jundi Sabur impulse, as a distorted quasi-Aristotelianism, passed to the Arabs, over Africa and Spain, to France, England, and through the monasteries (e.g. Roger Bacon) back over to the Continent.

The "Realism" of the Medieval scholastics (especially the revived Aristotelianism of Thomas Aquinas) opposed this Arabian influence, somewhat correctly seeing it as inimical to Christianity; but with the decline and decadence of Medieval Aristotelianism, and with the dawn of modern, anti-Aristotelian "empiricism" (e.g. Francis Bacon), the diluted, but still powerful, Sorat-science came to dominate world-culture.

Baconian and Goethean Science

The true spirit of this kind of scientism can be illustrated by a telling metaphor coined early in this epoch by scientism's seminal spokesman, Francis Bacon. He said, propounding scientific experimentalism, that we must put Nature on the rack and force Her to answer the questions we put to Her.

This figure will speak volumes to those who meditate upon it: We, seeking information for whatever motives, are to torture the Goddess who gave us birth and nurture, so as to cause Her, through unbearable pain and injury, to blurt out secrets which She, in her wisdom, conceals from the impure and self-seeking. In much of so-called "physiological research" and "medical training" this is hardly even a metaphor; the torture unto death is quite literal.

The usual victims are animals, but all too many "researchers" are not above using human "subjects" when they can get enough power over them. And even a slight whiff of occult knowledge shows us a deeper meaning: The central rite of "Satanism" or "black magic" -- sometimes crude, sometimes sophisticated -- is the deliberate, ritual torture and killing of animals and, at a more advanced level, of human beings.

When done in a precise way, this practice confers knowledge and power upon the practitioner; also, it affects the whole earth, hardening and rigidifying it, to the characteristic Ahrimanic purpose. Thus we can see the hordes of "researchers" and medical students -- who hurt, injure, and "sacrifice" animals -- as undergoing an unconscious, Ahrimanic black magic initiation, which hardens, brutalizes, and Ahrimanizes their souls, and through them also the culture, and even the earth itself. (Sacrifice is the actual word they commonly use, not thinking which "god" they sacrifice unto.)

Vivisection is truly the archetypal act of modern science as it is generally understood and practiced.

In contrast to our Baconian science, there does exist a little-known scientific trend, inaugurated by the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. In the general culture he is known primarily as the author of Faust; but he was also a scientist, known for (if known at all) the prediction of the discovery of the intermaxillary bone in Man, or, less often, for his anti-Newtonian theory of color.

His mode of scientific thinking was quite different form the Baconian-Ahrimanic mode, and likewise he illustrated it with a telling metaphor. He said (in paraphrase) that we must approach Nature as a reverent lover, and, perhaps, She will whisper to us Her intimate secrets. The contrast to Bacon's metaphor could hardly be more stark. Also, the Goethean method of scientific investigation, in contrast to amoral experimentalism, is a method of self-improvement and self-development -- a reverent meditating upon the facts of experience, in the hope that they will speak.

This scientific method has, of course, been all but buried under the Baconian-Ahrimanic avalanche, even in Goethe's own country. And it was no mere accident that Steiner's first professional appointment was to edit Goethe's scientific writings, in the Goethe-Schiller Archive in Weimar. Steiner and his successors have developed and expanded the Goethean method to an amazing extent, giving us a reasonable hope for renewed life in our deadened, death-dealing scientific culture. Steiner too has been almost totally ignored by scientists in the West, slightly less so in Central Europe.

Also, the practice of Goethean-Steinerean science has vast implications for the soul of the practitioner, as well as for the whole earth. Spiritual science sees soul and spirit in Nature, in a real, practical way, completely consistent with the "empirical" facts. It reverently approaches the scientific laboratory as a holy place, and the experiment as a sacrament, as a revelation of the Creator-Spirits through the sacred symbols of Nature. This is consistent only with the moral development of the scientist, and with the furtherance of the Gods' plan of human and cosmic evolution.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

this type of science follows a refried dialectical materialism repackaged as : The Neuroscientific View of Life:
www.orthodoxytoday.org...

Here we begin to sense the chill that emanates from the hottest field in the academic world. The unspoken and largely unconscious premise of the wrangling over neuroscience's strategic high ground is: We now live in an age in which science is a court from which there is no appeal. And the issue this time around, at the end of the twentieth century, is not the evolution of the species, which can seem a remote business, but the nature of our own precious inner selves.

of course we mystics and occultists are only being trolled as "feeble minded" and "delusional"...

for now...

some "scientists" are already clamoring for forced "treatments" ...
inquisition style

history does not repeat itself,
but sometimes it rhymes

but pay no regard to my words, as I Am quite "Insane"

reply to post by TheMagus


Welcome to the club if you want in. This is our theme song.

I don't like certain practical science.

Some people got a romantic view of cavemen life, others got a romantic view of modern life.
I think both have issues.

If only they were persons I would invite them to my "party" and give them date rape drugs.
Hoping they would make a child with little issues.