why such huge veneration of science?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry aghogday, your thought processes are too bizarre for me to even want to attempt to "decode."
It could be your communication but I'm betting on the other.
I'm so glad I don't live in there...

I'm not trying to be offensive which is why I haven't responded to any of your other posts.

I know that truth can be painful but...
You don't understand a single thing in my brain, therefore you cannot agree (or disagree) with anything I think or say.
You're not even close enough to ask me a question.

vice-versa

You think a lot and are passionate. I think that's good.
I don't understand anything else about you or what you say.

sorry

HA! did I say I understand anything about your brain, No I did not.

And just as in your case, the wink means I was kidding, so please let us not get bent out of shape.

What is normal for one person is often Bizarre for the next, particularly when the brain
is not fully used, as such.

But again, I am not suggesting I know anything about your brain, but you for one are taking
that liberty with me.

It's called projection, in some of other fields of study, but for this one I will allow you to speculate, as you like. :)

1st .. very possibly ignorance is bliss which is a counter argument to the pursuit of knowledge (science)

2nd .. the Scientific Method does no indemnify one from foolishness .. people follow the scientific method all the time and end up with foolishness .... (e.g., I just read today that a women died from a flu vaccine)

In this case, science convinced this women to inject herself with something that resulted in her death.

Trust me, to master one's mind to escape thoughts is ignorance and bliss.

Folks in Eastern Philosophies who know the TRUTH OF THIS HAVE BEEN PRACTICING IT FOR THOUSAND OF YEARS through Yoga, TAI CHI and other Martial ARTS.

Meanwhile MANY folks in the western world spend their time gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands in words of abstract illusion IN FEAR.

The MOST CRAZY THING OF ALL, IS INSANITY LIKE THAT.

I FOR ONE stay sane ALL THE TIME, TG, Through simple mastery of mind over mind PER Relative FREE WILL and THINGS THAT REALLY MATTER LIKE FLESH AND BLOOD CONNECTION IN SMILES, LAUGHS, GYRATING HIPS and BRIGHT EYES OF unconditional love WITH OTHERS, with Human touching flesh and blood connection AND SUCH AS THAT IN THE TRUE song and DANCE OF LIFE that humans are EVOLVED TO DO FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS before words alone AND THE SYSTEMIZING WAYS OF SCIENCE become our illusory MASTERs.

Science is a tool and that is all.

To live by it only is to be a.......

NOT much of anything @ALL....

but letters words and numbers.

And other abstract constructs...

This describes me.
I'm terrified of the larger system intelligence that has emerged from the abstract constructs of our society.
Can you help me?

Also, I understood your post and analogies just fine.

Scientists generally take a hands-off approach when it comes to what we call "freedom of choice", which is another illusion. This is something that applies to the nuclear science and guns. It's more a failure of humanity than it is of science. Some scientists realize this and try to be more responsible.

Sometimes it's hard to see some parts of a process if you're embedded in it.
Maybe this will help?

Imagine a society of cats where a brilliant cat scientist working in pharmaceuticals invents a new chemical compound that an enterprising and ambitious cat uses to make a very efficient rat killer. Pretty soon many cats are eating poisoned rats and getting sick. The cat government sees the health problems and gives more resources to pharmaceutical research.
There are unintended consequences that have to do with the nature of the cats and the social system that the cats had constructed for themselves. It had nothing to do with the intent of the cat scientist.
The system co-opts science and it is corrupted.

I like this idea of the cat scientist.

I wish these things did happen in science, but what really happens is that you never finish the jigsaw and don't know what it looks like or how many pieces there are, while knowing that you might be making up a jigsaw that has nothing to do with reality, and there is no sweeping away the dust to see an artifact, it is more like each problem solved leads to the next giant bolus of questions, and you feel a drive to go to those, still uncertain about eberrything, and you eventually go insane, but you enjoy yourself doing these things.

How one might use the rat killer can not possibly corrupt the science.

I agree with this too. Richard Feynman used some very good analogies to describe this situation between us and the scientific search for knowledge.
We only see the shadows of just some of the things that are actually happening around us, and the best we can do is to construct some abstract models of how we think those shadows are working.

“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Also, Jacob Bronowski had a view that was very relevant to this. It is expressed in great detail in his "The Ascent of Man" series, episode #11 "Knowledge or Certainty".
He discusses the regrets of many great scientists who contributed to the efforts that produced atomic bombs.
Feynman was one of them.
It was not the fault of science. However, science is a part of (within) humanity and not separate from it, like perhaps it should be.

Bronowski says Each time we add to our knowledge, the goal keeps leaping out ahead of us to infinity.

It does seem that way, but one context is embedded within another.

I am a huge fan of science, but not of the context it is within.

Wow, 14 pages.

I have posted some controversial or offensive hypotheses in other threads and on other forums and got a lot of scorn for that. (not saying anything about this thread, just talking about this other thing) What I like to do is post my most offensive hypotheses and yet humbly consider other people's ideas. It is possible to do those two things simultaneously, despite what a lot of people think, in my opinion. These 14 pages, I have not had time to read all of it. I hope there will be something interesting. I did read in the beginning though and bits here and there after that. What I saw a lot of was quite emotional responses. And I think that comparison I made earlier applies to a lot of posts; I said I watched a video where some Christians called a Muslim and intended to discuss whether Mohammad ever existed in real life. The Muslim retorted irritatedly "Did Jesus ever exist in real life?". I totally agree with the poster that said that a lot of times people who say others are closed-minded are the most closed-minded themselves. But as I said, I think it's possible to put forward offensive hypotheses and simultaneously humbly consider other people's ideas. I have had a lot of very offensive things said about me elsewhere and I don't mind. One hypothesis I have is that a lot of people have a fear of looking too deeply at certain things, because they have a subconscious fear that they might fall into the quagmire of psychosis and rejection if they do. They have all kinds of psychological defense mechanisms to protect themselves and their world view. And subconsciously they know that if they were to look too deeply at certain things the house of cards that is their world view would begin to collapse. Another hypothesis I have that is related to that is that a lot of people have a lot to lose. And the fear of losing that is what creates a need for some form of belief system, that their minds will protect at all costs. Anything that threatens it is attacked. Career, reputation, wife, children, friends, stable income, a roof over your head, it could be anything. When discussing politics, philosophy, religion and similar things I like to be frank even with my most offensive ideas, because I find that beating around the bush in order to be nice just makes for a less efficient or interesting discussion a lot of times, depending on how easily offended people are though. I'm not saying any of it is right, or that anything I have said in the thread is right. It's all just speculation, like the moon is made out of cheese kind of speculation.

Saying that the moon is made out of cheese would hardly be speculation. There is absolutely nothing remotely rational in such an idea.

I didn't know speculation had to be rational.

When you speculate about something, you are trying to come up with a possible explanation for it even if you don't have much, if any, evidence. It still needs to agree with the available evidence, at least to some degree. If the so-called "explanation" is not possible, then it cannot be considered to be speculation. Just because someone can say something does not make it speculation.

It is not possible for the moon to be made of cheese and therefore any claims that it is made of cheese are not speculation.

Speculation: My pupil is a black hole
Reason for speculation: something a Taoist told me once after he'd returned from a trip to China.
Evidence: something involving maths so not within my grasp

A shrink told me I was too clever for my own good.

Still not sure wether that was an insult or a compliment...

As you were

You really make science sound as a socially acceptable form of OCD.