What is the point of life?

Post Reply New Topic

i am supposedly a piscean. i was born on feb 29, 1972.
astrology is poppycock, and i have met quite a number of astrologically interested people who have predicted i am a taurean in the past.

i was not more than 70% serious with my last post by the way.

Mars and Saturn were in Taurus at the time, which makes a lot of sense to me, since so much (or 70%) of your energy seems to be devoted to creating security.

i would not worry too much about it.

Don't worry, I'm not. Just interested.

mars is the planet of "war" or assertion, and "saturn" is the planet of "superstition" and paranoia.
i will only tread upon what i am sure will hold my weight.

Beliefs are not knowledge.
Knowledge is verifiable information,
beliefs propositions the individual thinks veracious.

Could you explain what you meant there?





Your schoolbooks filled up with "knowledge" are all beliefs. They are merely the mainstream accepted beliefs of the day. These beliefs change all the time.



How do you figure this? What source of knowledge is available on Earth that is not opinionated belief? I challenge you to find any broad source of knowledge that has zero bias. I have yet to find this in the real world. I trust my own analyses of things, as I have designed my brain to detect my own biases, which it does continually. Every source of third party information I have ever found, is always influenced by the bias of whoever created the information.

To clarify, almost all of science has already been proven incorrect, multiple times. This is the very nature of science, to perpetually prove itself wrong, to gradually come to a clearer understanding of what "is". The world being flat was taught as fact, just as the world being spherical is taught as fact currently.

In the future, we will have a better understanding of how complex systems operate, and the Earth will no longer be thought of as spherical. You will most likely think me stupid for saying this, due to your bias toward the belief you were taught that "the Earth is spherical, full stop."

How can you suggest that science is not "belief"?

Have you even seen most of what is passed off as scientific fact, generation after generation, being proven wrong years later?

Throughout the history of science, the people that actually knew what was going on were ridiculed, reduced, imprisoned or killed. Decades or even centuries later their observations were vindicated by an updated mainstream scientific belief.

To suggest that mainstream science isn't chock full of "belief" is just silly, as it absolutely is. Please note, I am no bible thumper, in case you somehow construe this as a religious argument.

Take for instance the mainstream scientific accepted viewpoint on Dark Matter. They have looked for evidence of its existence for several decades now. At no point in time have they encountered even a shred of real world evidence that it exists. Dark Matter is merely a workaround for the math formulas of gravity being wrong (i.e. why galaxies don't just tear apart), fabricating a mythical and invisible particle which "solves" the formulas being wrong. The mainstream biased scientists do not want to consider that the formulas of gravity could be wrong, as that would invalidate all those decades of work that used those formulas. The scientific method is not followed by the vast majority of mainstream scientists.

My logical viewpoint on Dark Matter is that there is no reason to believe it exists, and that it just another in a long history of thousands of biased excuses being made by scientists in order to not consider new theories.

There are plenty of other models of gravity, ones that can explain why galaxies do not tear apart, without any need for this mythical Dark Matter. But they aren't given the time of day, due to the bias of the scientific community at large. It is pathetic and illogical to not consider all available evidence and theories to explain it, may the best theory win.

You said that science is not belief, so why do most scientists believe that Dark Matter exists, when there is absolutely zero observable evidence that it does?

The issue isn't science, though. The issue is that modern "science" primarily consists of politics and money. Progress is no longer the main goal of science, it has been replaced by a desire to get the next big project grant. Science has become another generic desk job, doing the work of corporate interest, rather than seeking actual scientific understanding.

It has been this way all along.

But despite all this, there are still real scientists, usually on the fringe (unless they have exceptional communication skills, which most hardcore scientists do not have, due to their intense focus on their one field of interest). But it is deeply saddening how much slower scientific progress is, due to this systemic misleading by the monetary system.

People like Nikola Tesla were screwed over royally by corporate greed. He spent his life in poverty, despite creating some of the most useful inventions of his era... other people just stole his ideas. Every bit of money he made, he put back into his own science endeavours. That is a real scientist, someone with a passion for understanding how things actually work, not merely concerned with things like patents, prestige, and monetary stability.