Limits of Science

[Iacchus]

Nope, it isn't.

To incite is to move to action; to stir up; to rouse; to spur or urge on.

Ever here the expression "to incite a riot?" And what are you nitpicking for anyway?

 

[dmarker]

Ever here the expression "to incite a riot?" And what are you nitpicking for anyway?

Because "inciteful" is not a real word, you just made it up to match "insightful" so you could apply your little phrase to something that you don't agree with.

The proper word is "inciting" as in "His inciting speech caused the crowd to burn the castle" as opposed to "His insightful speech caused the crowd to accept the castle and it inhabitants" I know those sentences were rather crude, but you get the picture.

 

[Radrook]

Obviously science has limits.
Only the wannabes refuse to admit that.
Real scientists do.
Wonder why the fanatical difference?

Oh well.


Maybe just one of those inexplicable throwback phenomenons..

 

[lifegazer]

Science studys the order apparent amongst the SENSED-things of our mind and has absolutely no knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. Therein resides the limitations of science: it is not a philosophy in itself nor an aid to materialistic-philosophy nor a haven for the atheists of this world.

The vast majority of the people in this forum are afraid to face the music, lest the foundations of their own feeble philosophies crumbles into the dust, where they belong.

 

[Radrook]

Science studys the order apparent amongst the SENSED-things of our mind and has absolutely no knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. Therein resides the limitations of science: it is not a philosophy in itself nor an aid to materialistic-philosophy nor a haven for the atheists of this world.

The vast majority of the people in this forum are afraid to face the music, lest the foundations of their own feeble philosophies crumbles into the dust, where they belong.

A loud clear voice of sanity finally resonates amidst the bedlam!

 

[Dancing David]

Obviously science has limits.
Only the wannabes refuse to admit that.
Real scientists do.
Wonder why the fanatical difference?

Oh well.


Maybe just one of those inexplicable throwback phenomenons..

I have missed most of the fight, what do us wannabes cling to? I for one doubt everything, but perhaps that means I am not a wannabe.

Science is limited to things discerned by the scientific method. So unobservable phenomena are harder to describe scientificaly, however sometime people also don't like what science has to say about things like:

Oh say, prayer and variable reinforcement.

Doubt everything, question authority.

 

[Dancing David]

Science studys the order apparent amongst the SENSED-things of our mind and has absolutely no knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. Therein resides the limitations of science: it is not a philosophy in itself nor an aid to materialistic-philosophy nor a haven for the atheists of this world.

The vast majority of the people in this forum are afraid to face the music, lest the foundations of their own feeble philosophies crumbles into the dust, where they belong.

Hey Lifegazer! Long time no read, before the bashers arrive i will ask, what do you know that is not a product of the senses?

 

[thaiboxerken]

A person cannot sense gamma radiation, yet it does exist.

The premise that science only deals with the "sensed" world is just a lie.

 

[Wudang]

Science studys the order apparent amongst the SENSED-things of our mind and has absolutely no knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. Therein resides the limitations of science: it is not a philosophy in itself nor an aid to materialistic-philosophy nor a haven for the atheists of this world.

The vast majority of the people in this forum are afraid to face the music, lest the foundations of their own feeble philosophies crumbles into the dust, where they belong.

You mean like eg answering the questions asked (like you fail to do), providing the proof you claim to have (like you fail to do)? Well it's been a year or so.

 

[lifegazer]

A person cannot sense gamma radiation, yet it does exist.

This is incorrect. We sense the effects of that electromagnetic radiation using machines/equipment - built and calibrated by humanity. Indeed, if it were not for the fact that we could sense the effects of this energy, we could not confirm its existence.
The fact of the matter is that no "thing" can be confirmed to exist within the universe unless humanity can somehow sense its presence.

The premise that science only deals with the "sensed" world is just a lie.

Tell this forum how we know that such energy exists without using knowledge gleaned via observation of its effects.

 

[lifegazer]

what do you know that is not a product of the senses?

I know that Something exists which cannot be sensed and which, therefore, is not part of the knowledge we derive via those sensations.
The entity I speak of is the One whose being embraces ALL the sensations that It has.

 

[Ossai]

lifegazer

I know that Something exists which cannot be sensed and which, therefore, is not part of the knowledge we derive via those sensations.
The entity I speak of is the One whose being embraces ALL the sensations that It has.

How? If you can’t sense it or it’s effects then how do you know something exists?
If you can’t sense it or it’s effects then how do you know it embraces ALL the sensations that it has? For that matter, do you even know it has senses?

Ossai

 

[lifegazer]

How? If you can’t sense it or it’s effects then how do you know something exists?

Something (whatever that might be) is having the sensations, thoughts and feelings, which constitute the human experience of existence.
It is impossible that absolutely-nothing could have such an experience.
It's just a case of using simple rationale - no senses required.

If you can’t sense it or it’s effects then how do you know it embraces ALL the sensations that it has?

The sensations that occur to that ~thing~ cannot happen to it beyond its own being. If there is a sense of pain, for example, then that pain must exist within the awareness and hence being that feels it.

For that matter, do you even know it has senses?

I have senses. The question is, who am I that senses?
Do you know who you are, beyond the parameters of what you sense about yourself?

 

[dmarker]

I know that Something exists which cannot be sensed and which, therefore, is not part of the knowledge we derive via those sensations.
The entity I speak of is the One whose being embraces ALL the sensations that It has.

If it cannot be sensed, how do you know that it is there? Could it not reside entirely in your own head and nowhere else?

 

[Z]

Do you know who you are, beyond the parameters of what you sense about yourself?

Yep, I sure do... and I ain't God.

Are you trying to insinuate that God is the sum total of human experience?

(Arrogance personified... fascinating)

So... God didn't exist before Humankind? Or are we talking about God being the sum total of experience of all life? IN WHICH CASE - God didn't exist before Life.

Well, THAT clarifies things...

EDITED TO CLARIFY WHO I WAS REPLYING TO...

 

[lifegazer]

If it cannot be sensed, how do you know that it is there? Could it not reside entirely in your own head and nowhere else?

Why didn't you just read my previous post to Ossai? He asked the same question... and the answer is simple and obvious.

"Something (whatever that might be) is having the sensations, thoughts and feelings, which constitute the human experience of existence.
It is impossible that absolutely-nothing could have such an experience.
It's just a case of using simple rationale - no senses required."

 

[Dancing David]

I know that Something exists which cannot be sensed and which, therefore, is not part of the knowledge we derive via those sensations.
The entity I speak of is the One whose being embraces ALL the sensations that It has.

Hiya LG, I hope we can talk before the detractors show up.

So how do you know about that "Something exists which cannot be sensed ?

A. Is it like, the "things" that we have reference to even though we can not sense them directly at a given time? Such a chair that 'stays' where 'it' was until we 'return' to it?
B. Is it like, the "things" that we surmise exist because of other sensory events that we percieve. In this case i mean like gamma radiation and radio waves?
C. Is it like, the "things" that we can think about and communicate about yet have no concrete reference in the world except through analogy? (Like counting rocks, calling a dog a 'dog')
D. Is it like, the "things" that we can think about that have an absolutely tenous reference in the world and are basical linguistic surmises? (Like the idea of google, meta cognition)
E. Is it like , a "thing" which is comprised of a surmise based upon the result of the former kinds of things?

I don't know if you can or will answer this, where I am headed is that what you have described is part of "the set of the unknowable" and so to say that it is 'known' means that you have used something at least in part based upon sensation to come to this 'conclusion there is knowledge'.

So isn't it impossible to truely discuss or make conclusions upon the 'unknown'.
I hope to understand what you might think about that.

 

[Beerina]

Addendum
I once read a very interesting short SCI Fi story about aliens who lacked eyes but who could perceive most of the spectrum scientists call light. From their standpoint, humans limited to the narrow band we call visual light were virtually blind.

The universe to these creatures was a panoramic, glorious, visual display far beyond the human imagination to conceive. As the story went, a scientist begged to be enabled to experience at least for a few seconds what these creatures perceived. When he emerged from the experience he sobbed uncontrollably and begged not to be left in the blind state that all humans were in.

Interesting!

I think the same thing about sexuality. But for the tiny brain nodes, the best sex is probably between two hermaphroditic snails. Entire body length mouth/belly/pseudopod meshed together like a body-length deep french kiss, pseudopod muscles undulating, one antenna ejaculating, the other receiving.

Much better than trout pr0n, which persumably wouldn't be pictures of female trout, but of eggs.