Why science must eventually reform

[RandFan]

As I wasn't here last year, this thread has been... mmm... strange.

Gazer had a life changing moment when he realized that his understanding of the world around him is simply perceived and that it is impossible to prove reality. Gazer realized that this was an earth shattering discovery and felt a deep responsibility to let the world in on his inspiration.

Now wait, sit down, yes, you are correct, the idea is not new. And yes, an entire branch of philosophy, ontology, deals with this very subject but that is no reason to mock his beliefs.

You see, this is his entire world view and his reason for existing, or as Gazer would say, experiencing.

At least one poster believes that Gazer is mentally unstable and that we should not engage him. Not being a doctor I don't know. You will have to make up your mind for yourself.

In any event, separate him from his philosophy and he seems a decent and rational human being.

 

[Jimbo07]

Gazer had a life changing moment when he realized that his understanding of the world around him is simply perceived and that it is impossible to prove reality. Gazer realized that this was an earth shattering discovery and felt a deep responsibility to let the world in on his inspiration.

It is important to note that any sort of reality and any perceptions of that reality are two different things, and that all we can have are perceptions.

For example, couldn't we say that due to our animalian evolution, our preceptions probably directly reflect a reality, so that there's no discernible difference between them? Didn't Russell disagree, simply because if you and I are perceiving the same object from two different directions, we'll have different perceptions and therefore there must be a difference between our perceptions and reality?

Umm... but couldn't science say... 'good enough?' Whether science is dealing with any of: observers, observed, perceptions, reality, etc. there should be no difference so long as the information is the same. Right? Wrong? Not applicable?

...

and how does any of it prove God? And how does the phrase

I'm looking for highbrow conversation. You're giving me same ol' same ol'

reflect highbrow, or dare I say, academic conversation in any way?

At least one poster believes that Gazer is mentally unstable and that we should not engage him. Not being a doctor I don't know. You will have to make up your mind for yourself.

I can't say. I can't tell the difference between someone who is genuinely confused, and someone who is having me on. I'm not sure they always can. I read a fun story recently. It had a character who was first out to con others, then later came to buy into the con itself!

In any event, separate him from his philosophy and he seems a decent and rational human being.

Isn't that most of us?

 

[Wowbagger]

This question, i.e. how it is in principle even possible to establish such a distinction, is one that I have posed twice in this thread, but an answer of any kind from anybody is still wanting.

In principal, I'd say it is not possible. Even if we did find evidence of a reality "outside of" what we currently call reality, you would have to question if that simply isn't just being experienced.

If we woke up in a science lab, as brains in vats, and discovered our entire lives were just dreams, how do we know we are still not in a dream even then? What if our existence as brains in vats was really a dream to keep us from the truth that we are energy-minds in a shoebox? Ad nauseum...

But, don't let's stop philosophy from trying to answer that.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

In principal, I'd say it is not possible.

...snip...

But, don't let's stop philosophy from trying to answer that.

Thank you for your answer. However, that thing I wrote about "an answer of any kind from anybody still [being] wanting" was a pointed remark aimed specifically at the originator of this thread. I was hoping, against empirical evidence collected thus far, that lifegazer would actually deign to address this grave objection. Either that, or realise the vacuity of the OP.

But then ignoring one's critics is, I suppose, an answer after a fashion.

'Luthon64

 

[Wowbagger]

Thank you for your answer. However, that thing I wrote about "an answer of any kind from anybody still [being] wanting" was a pointed remark aimed specifically at the originator of this thread. I was hoping, against empirical evidence collected thus far, that lifegazer would actually deign to address this grave objection. Either that, or realise the vacuity of the OP.

D'oh! There I go answering lifegazer's questions for him, again! Well, at least I'm good at it.

 

[Tricky]

I didn't have the heart, stomach or organs in general to go through the entire thread, so just a question before I decide to try anyway or continue my leisurely lurking: Is there anything new in Lifegazer's repertoire since last year, other than the lack of teal?

Also: Hiya, Lifegazer!

Not really anything new. Take a look at his virgin post of more than two years ago.

Hello, my name's lifegazer and I am your pilot & guide for our next tour beyond the physical-realm and into the domain of The Divine-Mind.
During our journey, we shall be flying through existence and contemplating the very foundations of human-knowledge and experience. I will be pointing-out the lanterns of existential- awareness and showing you all, via reason, what they actually tell us.
During this journey, your mind is liable to blow-out as you contemplate "landmarks" which will challenge the established mind-sets of our time: scientific and religious. At such times, I shall advise you all to "belt up" and adopt the meditative position.
Kindly take your seats... relax... and prepare for take-off.

Same merde, different day. He has a new way of looking at things that will shock and astound us if we can only "experience" it.

I will say, it's been a fun and amusing ride although, like most amusement park rides, it goes around in circles.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Not really anything new. Take a look at his virgin post of more than two years ago.


Same merde, different day. He has a new way of looking at things that will shock and astound us if we can only "experience" it.

I will say, it's been a fun and amusing ride although, like most amusement park rides, it goes around in circles.

Hehe, the only difference is the mood, which I remember, was damped quite quickly, already in that first thread.

Oh well, I'll be off lurking again, thanks.

 

[Mojo]

Basic philosophy quickly differentiates between the human-experience and the reality of 'our universe': subjective inner-experience as opposed to objective actual-reality. They are not the same.
For those of you of a level to understand this, let's examine why science needs to reform...

Scientists are human too. They observe the universe through sense-based experience. They cannot escape their own experience of the universe.
They cannot experiment with or contemplate anything other than the sensed-universe. Even their tools and templates exist within their experience and measure parameters and discern laws (order) amongst that experience.
Every scientific understanding or theory of 'the universe' should relate to this fact that the universe we observe is Self-experienced... but it doesn't (hence the need for reform - more later).
No science relates to a 'real world' because no scientist can observe a 'real world'.
In the whole history of philosophy, there is not a single sound-argument which promotes the reality of our universe beyond the experience of it (btw, such a "sound-argument" is not something which negates the irrational nature of individual religious ideas, or 'religion' as a whole).

What is science doing when it denounces religion? Perhaps philosophy can denounce religion, but science cannot. Certainly, science cannot denounce the idea that 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced - created this universal experience.

Closely observe science. It's theories ASSUME the realistic nature of everything that is observed. Consequently, it's theories mirror this ASSUMPTION.

Consequently, some current theories run-along the line that 'the universe' of real objects existing in real space-time came into being from and extended into NOTHING. Philosophically, such theories can only be judged - with all due respect - as retarded. Such are the consequences of assuming a reality which we cannot experience nor rationalise.
I'll just mention some more important rational blunders:-

1) 'Brains' (objects within experience), are the cause of experience!!!
2) QM - real particles within the real universe, have the ability to emerge from nothing. Yet no scientist has ever observed a real particle!!!!!!!!!
3) Science does not understand why Relativity is at-odds with Newton's Laws of motion. Well, the answer is obvious - Newton was talking about the motion of absolute-objects in an absolute-universe... whereas Einstein (albeit ignorantly) discovered that The Self, alone, is 'absolute'... and all experienced-objects are relative to IT.

Science has progressed so far that it's walked up it's own ass via assumptions of the reality of the world. It's been corrupted by such assumptions. It's theories revolve around such assumptions. Any scientist that mentions 'God' is systematically ridiculed and castigated. Only scientists such as Dawkins are popular amongst the materialistic masses.

It's gotten beyond a joke - not just because it's wrong (science should not be based upon assumption, like the religions it's members have consistently mocked) - but because until 'science' formally reforms to a position obvious from this post, humanity will not progress.
Okay, religion - as we know it - is not the answer. But neither is science - as we know it.

Reform is inevitable. What say thee?

Hey, lifegazer!

I've found a peer-reviewed article that appears to support your assertion: Sokal, Alan D. 1996. Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity Social Text #46/47, pp. 217-252 (spring/summer 1996).

There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in "eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the "objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

 

[H'ethetheth]