why such huge veneration of science?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you mean me? I am skeptical of a lot of stuff on red ice, but I think there are some good things too. InfoWars, I take that with a grain of salt too. I'm not a fan of David Icke, although I think some things he has said probably have some truth to them, but I personally think a huge portion of what David Icke says is BS. Daily Mail, no don't read that. Might have seen some article from there, don't remember, but I wasn't aware that was an especially suspicious source, perhaps because I don't live in a country that has English as the first language, so thanks for the info. Racism, yes there's a fair share of that going around, I'm skeptical of that as much as I am of egalitarianism. Green-baiting, let me look that word up in a dictionary. Anti-environmentalism, hmmm, I'm not much of a political activist. If you are talking about me I think you are being somewhat intolerant. I do realize that most of what I talked about perhaps might require some kind of intuition or personal spiritual experience to be able to grasp, which is why it's probably pointless to try to talk about it to those who don't have that. They try to kill Neo in The Matrix. Plato talked about this too:

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Metaphysics

Possibly. I very rarely watch video clips so I haven't looked to see what that one says. He did an interview in the late 1970s or early 1980s that I should still have on a VHS tape. In fact, I had just gotten my first recorder and it was actually the first thing I ever recorded on it. I wonder if that might be from that interview.

I would agree that in the case of Global Warming, it has almost become a religion for some. Much of that does see bogus, but I suspect that most of that bogosity is not from the actual researchers, but from flunkies who read into it more than what is there.



I'm not a doctor and aren't aware of the hostility of which you speak.



Perhaps you don't understand the terms.

What laymen call a "theory" is anything but that in science. At best, what a layman might call a theory would be a conjecture. At worst, an hallucination.

A theory is an explanation that has stood the test of time. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports it, and that may be an understatement.



Keep in mind that science writers are often not scientists. If you want to know what the science says, look at the research papers, not newspaper or internet articles.



Because we cannot experiment directly on evolutionary processes to a large degree, inductive arguments do play a legitimate purpose. While those arguments might possibly be wrong, that possibility is quite low.

There is no doubt whatsoever that evolution has happened. The open questions are about the precise mechanisms of evolution, not the existence of evolution itself. The only way to deny that evolution has indeed happened and is always happening, even now, is to come up with some magical explanation for which there is no evidence of any kind.

Magic is ignorance, not science.

To clarify, I was responding to a bit of your post, but I was attacking Red Ice, not you.

Depends. There is a strain of feminism that holds the view that women should take predatory pride in their sexual exploits just as men do, which would create something more like a cougar epidemic than anything...if it suddenly caught on, anyhow.

Well, I think it would be beneficial if men were only showing an interest in becoming fathers. There are too many fathers now who have little or no interaction with their kids, and I think the world would be a little happier if the only men conceiving children were those who actually were happier with rugrats to care for. I think the inclination to parent is the most important qualification for the job, before intelligence, health or any other trait. A willing and engaged father is very meaningful to a child, in my way of thinking.

Ok. I am quite critical and skeptical of that site too, and I have become increasingly so over time. Maybe part of that is my conspiratorial nature but I certainly have my suspicions about that site. You have to do a lot of sifting, and even then I find that the primary use is for finding ideas, books etc. talked about and then do your own research on that. It's kind of like reading a forum in that way, lots of people who don't know all that much but you can still get bits and pieces from them if you know how to sift. And there are some quite knowledgeable people on there too from time to time that seem somewhat sincere. I found the book Economics In One Lesson through listening to that show for example, so it's not all mumbo jumbo. I do feel tired of red ice sometimes though. Can be a bit one-sided and narrow-minded. But as for that quote about the cold war that I posted, I think that it's a good illustration of what I was talking about, and I think that the psychological aspect of what he talked about is quite accurate. Here's a video that I think is very fitting with that quote:

No.. it's not an either/or.. Unlike science, poetry doesn't NEED to have a practical end, but very often it has one anyway. Sometimes, poetry does for the soul what massage does for the body. Other times poetry helps get at a notion quicker than a long winded explanation. It has many uses. And sometimes it's just there and that's all it needs to be.

And me being relatively new and not knowing his previous posts... I fell for it....

.....at first. lol

Well parodied, I say!

To some degree I agree with you. One simple example: Why would a company, whose core business is data mining your browsing habits, bother to create a free browser and a free operating system? Answer - It has to help with their core business, giving them even more access to your habits (and not just browsing). I refuse to have their browser on my computer!

Example number 2: Look into the background of most phone app's. See what permissions you are giving them by allowing the install. You don't get to turn any of those permissions off. Again, on my smartphone I have only essential app's. And I don't update them unless I absolutely have to. If it ain't broke, I don't fix it.

I said that I agree with you to some degree. If we go back to the 50's and 60's, 99% of business was done legitimately, and people had simpler business and personal ethics. I believe that there is still a core of that in much of human enterprise. Yes there is more exploitation of ignorance now, but business and marketing is not all pernicious. To a large degree, people are still basically good, even if competitive. (I think there's also an evolutionary basis for both the good and the competitive.)

The "huddled masses" seem easily swayed and corporate integrity is falling rapidly, but individuals are generally good people. We all have our biases and prejudices and greed moments. Some individuals will feel compelled to tow the corporate line. And occasionally you'll come across an outrageous individual who sees everyone else as grist for the mill.

I think the same applies to scientists. Some will be corporate slaves, but most are regular folks, and some will have great enthusiasm for their work.

When I was a Christian, I saw enthusiastic scientists and thought them arrogant. Now that I'm in my late 50's, not so hot-headed and more reflective, I see those same scientists as having found their bliss. They have a passion for their work. The smile on their face isn't arrogance - it's enthusiasm. Richard Feynman is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. I used to think him arrogant. It's possible there is a little of that, but what I see more in him is the passion that introverts know well. Ask an introvert to chat about nothing and they'll be stuck for words. Ask an introvert to chat about their passion and they'll chew your ear off with great enthusiasm.

Anyway... my point is, while I agree that the Orwellian dilemma is definitely here, I still think most people are well intended, and most business is conducted with a degree of good faith. That said, I still safeguard mine and my family's privacy, and don't allow media to determine how I live or what I think.

On the "what I think" front, I have seen too often how news gets reported either falsely or badly, so I remain skeptical of anything that's reported. I also refuse to follow the "with us or against us" mentality, which breeds fear and distrust.

Longer post than I intended... oh well.

Just out of curiousity, how old are you and what is the source of your immense life experiences?

Anyway, my comment about tomato maybe being a troll is based on the the fact that it looks like the postings are little more than conglomerations of buzzwords with no coherent argument at all.

For example, let's look at the quotes from above:



That tomato thinks corruption is enlightenment is absolutely immaterial to anything. What we want to see is a coherent argument. That comment hardly qualifies as an argument at all, certainly not a coherent argument.



Once again, where is an actual coherent argument? To provide an example (and that is hardly a first rate example) is not to provide an argument. The only thing an example can be used to prove is to disprove a statement as a counterexample. Outside of that, examples might help provide some insight into an argument, but they never, by themselves, constitute an argument.



Now here is where an example can be useful -- all it takes is one example of anyone whois a scientist or a Christian who is not alienated, neurotic, introverted, or mentally inhibited to show the statement is false. Most scientists and most Christians I have ever met do not seem to be alienated, neurotic, introverted, and mentally inhibited. Of course, since those are psychological terms, perhaps we any example we come up with be of people that psychologists have examined and found to be none of those.



I fail to see what that has to do with pain vs truth.



I don't see how that follows. There may be some frustrated lonely men as a result of feminism, but I doubt that there are all that many. I suspect that most men who are frustrated and lonely would be frustrated and lonely even if feminism did not exist. It isn't that there are some feminist women out there who make those men frustrated and lonely.



Maybe if you put your life on the Internet. That is your choice.



Not sure what this has to do with anything. It doesn't sound like "judgement day" at all and any evidence of a "gradual process" for "judgement day" is completely absent.



Don't know what science really is in the greater picture? I think that is clear. Not in a smaller picture, either. This reads more like mysticism rejecting the rational.

Often, it is the people who scold others for being not being open minded are the most closed minded ones of all.

I really didn't want to waste time going through this in more detail, but here goes:

How are they related to one another? Are you talking about brothers and sisters?



So provide some examples.

I gave an example, I think appearing on page 7 of this thread, of a relatively minor case. Other than the fraudulent attempt by Wakefield for his own financial gain. It should be noticed that as a result of his fraud, he has lost his license to practice medicine. Science does not take kindly to fraud. That is the most major case I can think of and it is hardly worth mentioning. But you seem to be in the know, so what are some examples? You claimed that science is full of corruption, so let's see something to back that up.



When I saw this, what crossed my mind was someone wearing a tin foil hat to keep their brain safe from energy beans trying to control them. Naturally, any arguments by such people tend to be founded on their own irrationality, not on any knowledge of science.



1984?



As I already said, it is very normal for people to use whatever techniques they have available to clear extraneous noise in videos and recordings. There is nothing wrong with that. It has happened in probably every movie and tv show you ever watched as well as in every recording you ever listened to. The extraneous noise would definitely be rather irritating for most people and would make the value of the show or recording much less.

I get the feeling that you think that the producer should be required to make sure that every comment from the audience appear in the recording. If that were to happen, it would end the production of all albums with live audiences. If I buy an album, I want to hear the group in the album, not obnoxious, possibly drunk, members of the audience.

And none of what you said proves anything. Let's not forget that you are talking about controlling minds. How does any of this relate to controlling minds?

I can see where you're coming from, and have no problems with you expressing it, but I have to disagree.

I have been critical of such meanderings, whether involving buzzwords or seemingly poetic nonsense. I was pulled up for this, especially with regard to the non-typical nature of an ASD forum, and I'm glad that I was. Aside from that correction, sometimes it's good to put our almost directionless meanderings out there to give us something to reflect on.


This is actually a good example. If you read what tomato said earlier about corruption and enlightenment, it actually made some sense to me. It reminded me of similar thoughts, such as conflict being a necessary part of life. I've said elsewhere (and possibly also here) that while I lean towards being a moderate, I think opposition points of view are actually necessary - they're like the opposing forces in an engine, and without those opposing forces there is no movement.

So, tomato's statement that corruption is enlightenment has much meaning, to me at least. Imagine a blank canvass. A sheet of uncorrupted white. It's meaningless and stagnant. But if you corrupt that purity with the complexity and colour of life, you find enlightenment and vitality. I may be straying from tomato's intended meaning, but that's also within the boundaries of free thinking.

Esoteric thoughts are arguably as important as practical coherent ones.

The way you put it there, "corruption" has a different meaning than what one thinks about for the word "corruption". I took the word "corruption" to mean something is "fraudulent" or "dishonest". I'm sure that if one looks hard enough, one could find a definition for "corruption" that would fit with what you said, but I don't know that I would trust those sources.

You could use it to mean "deviation from an ideal" (I just did a Google search), but then that presupposed that the ideal is a blank piece of canvas and that any alteration of that canvas makes it less ideal. I don't buy that at all.

Corruption, by any usual definition of the term, is hardly enlightenment at all.

Because aspies in general prefer pure and simple facts where there is undeniable evidence that they are true over dated beliefs and biased opinions that should have been left in the Middle Ages where most of them started.

I think it applies in all of its meanings.
Through fraudulence and dishonesty we also gain enlightenment. Gandhi would not have been Gandhi without the corruption he had to deal with.

We sometimes think enlightenment should enhance our lives, but enlightenment is not a bestower of ethics or improved conditions. It can lead to that, but enlightenment is not in itself ethically bound. For example, through terrorism, we are more enlightened about the dangers of this world, and the terrible threat of extremism, but along with that our freedom has been reduced, not by enlightenment, but by choices made with this new understanding.

That is a narrow definition of some aspies. The spectrum is far more diverse than that.