Why science must eventually reform

[UndercoverElephant]

He is the classic case of what happens if someone get hold of a little bit of information but lacks enough context to understand it. Science doesn't need to be reformed. But there is a problem, and it stems from a lack of dialogue between science and philosophy and poor knowledge of philosophy of science by scientists. This could be remedied in many ways, not least by making philosophy of science a compulsory module on all science degrees. But this would not be a reformation of science. It would just be an improvement in the communication between science and philosophy. Lifegazer isn't in a position to lecture people on this because he himself has an inadequate (totally absent?) understanding of the relationships between science, materialism and the rest of philosophy.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Reform is inevitable. What say thee?

I say read E.A. Burtt, W.V. Quine, T. Kuhn and K. Popper. Then read them again carefully. If you have the stomach for it, you can then give L. Sklar a whirl, but, at all costs, steer clear of P. Feyerabend.

When their collective message has sunk in, you'll perhaps see just how puerile and inconsequential your OP is.

'Luthon64

 

[lifegazer]

What do you think science can do apart from admit there are some questions it cannot answer? Nothing, Darren. It can do NOTHING.

It is the job of science to objectively discern the causal agent(s) and order for the world that we experience.

... The key words are those underlined. As I said in the first line of my OP, "Basic philosophy quickly differentiates between the human-experience and the reality of 'our universe'.". Science claims to be 'objective' yet has assumed that the world which we experience is real - a clear illogical contradiction of this aforementioned basic-philosophy.
Science - albeit ignorantly - has been observing the order inherent amongst the experiences which yield the impression of a world.

... If [the establishment of] science actually understood this, it would also understand that ultimately, the causal-agent of all that is experienced cannot be discerned amongst experience itself. I.e., the actual cause of all things experienced, cannot be an experienced thing.
Nothing amongst the world that we experience can ever cause that experience (which is not to say that 'nothing' is the cause).

... Consequently, when you have scientists wasting countless hours & $£$ researching the experienced-brain or the experienced-matter as the ultimate cause of the totality-of-experience which constitutes our own being, you have - in effect - an establishment which (whether it knows this or not) believes that the experienced-world is real and that causal-agents for that world can be found "out there" (amongst the experience).
It is philosophically corrupt, so to speak. It certainly is not objective... and, if bias is not exhibited, then ignorance and naivity certainly are.

How many hours have been wasted trying to figure-out how 10-dimensional strings or 2-dimensional membranes - existing through several dimensions - have caused this world??
How many big-bang theories are there? To what ends? Does a scientist not comprehend that the experienced world did not start with a bang? So what other universe is he talking about - the one he imagines to be real in itself, of course.

Then we have Einstein, who showed us that The Self, alone, is 'absolute'... and all experienced-objects are relative to IT. Newton would be correct if the world was real, but it isn't and neither is he.
There's so many so-called mysteries about QM, but they're only a mystery for those who do not understand that nothing but the Self is real. Everything adds up once people understand that there is nothing outside of the Self.

Science is in need of reform because it's stuck in a cul-de-sac and until it does reform, man as a whole cannot know his true identity nor understand the nature of the world that is experienced. Also, such a stance promotes atheism which is not a force for the common good.

One day, establishment pride will succumb to rationale.

 

[drkitten]

It is the job of science to objectively discern the causal agent(s) and order for the world that we experience.

... The key words are those underlined.

I'm glad you underlined them, because it makes it very clear that you're entirely off-base.

It is not necessary for science to be objective (it is often desirable, but sometimes impractical or impossible). It is not necessary for science to focus merely on the causal agents (in fact, most of the past century of physics has focused specifically on the discriptions of non-causal processes), and science has a focus much broader than the merely experiential world.

Basically, you have no understanding of science, scientific practice, scientific ontology, or scientific methodology.

 

[Mojo]

Science is in need of reform because it's stuck in a cul-de-sac and until it does reform, man as a whole cannot know his true identity nor understand the nature of the world that is experienced. Also, such a stance promotes atheism which is not a force for the common good.

One day, establishment pride will succumb to rationale.

Please state clearly how science needs to reform.

...because until 'science' formally reforms to a position obvious from this post, humanity will not progress.

Please state what this "obvious" position is.

 

[El Greco]

Just when you hope that one may have managed to get out of the swamp... you realize he really must have no other place he can call "home".

 

[Tirdun]

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.

 

[Upchurch]

Yeah, he has never really understood Relativity or what its foundations were. What can ya do?

 

[bjb]

One question science can not answer is how LG can type so much without his keyboard shorting out from all the drool.

 

[Ducky]

You gonna answer my questions LG?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

How many hours have been wasted trying to figure-out how 10-dimensional strings or 2-dimensional membranes - existing through several dimensions - have caused this world??

62 hours. Next question.

How many big-bang theories are there?

Well, there's the Big Bang Theory and . . . uh . . .

Does a scientist not comprehend that the experienced world did not start with a bang?

Well, the universe had a heavy breakfast and didn't stretch sufficiently before time began. Nevertheless, by the tenth mile, the universe was well at the front of the pack.

Science is in need of reform because it's stuck in a cul-de-sac . . .

You know, I told science not to park there because of the huge graduation party next door, but that science just won't reform!

 

[Jimbo07]

I hope everyone here can follow my well-reasoned and carefully crafted argument here:

1) Blox snog groggle flox floopty hopp garghle blox fnagle niptiz imagined philosophical profundity bleex sneegger grts fnap causal experience shtoop gleekly

2) agtrh;ilvn 5l3uivgn pvajpa8;nb n.;e5uy890ujh[bb mql2 ;4l3894uyhjnb; n

3) Einstein's Extra Special Relativity is proof of the 'self'


... From my above arguments it should be perfectly obvious to everybody how and why science needs to be performed.

If you don't get it, you're stupid.

 

[Upchurch]

Ah, the good ol' "blox snog groggle" argument. A classic.

 

[Tirdun]

You know, I told science not to park there because of the huge graduation party next door, but that science just won't reform!

No, no. Its a family reunion, science is blocked in the cul-de-sac by the Theory of Relatives.

Honestly, lifegazer, I cannot take your posts seriously in the least if you claim that scientists cannot "understand why Relativity is at-odds with Newton's Laws of motion". Modern physics owes Sir Newton a literal universe of thanks, but physics did not start and end in 1687.

 

[Doubt]

Ah, the good ol' "blox snog groggle" argument. A classic.

He spelled it wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jimbo07]

Okay, clearly I have to clear up some things for you Scienazi Materialisticist MORONS (who, btw, are going to burn in heck, and feel the wrath of my universal psi-powers).

Ah, the good ol' "blox snog groggle" argument. A classic.

First, you're thinking of the "fleeb burbblee snax" argument, a mistake only an ignorant 1st year scientifikalist could make. PWNED!

He spelled it wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Second, it's my own argument, so I spell it how I like. Learn to read flowe**ng g@swhole! Luser.

Modern physics owes Sir Newton a literal universe of thanks, but physics did not start and end in 1687.

WRONG!!!

Physics started and ended exactly in 1687! In fact, it started on January 1, 1687 and ended two days before expected on Dec. 29, 1687. There were a ton of luser physikitians out of work the next year. They were a dime a dozen, or tuppence for a ha' penny as they used to say, which if you read any history would tell you that alien astronaut alchemists were behind the ent...

It's true!

 

[lifegazer]

Please state clearly how science needs to reform.

Please state what this "obvious" position is.

(1) Acknowledge that what is observed is the experienced-world of ordered sensations that yield the appearance of a world... as opposed to assuming that what is observed is a real world full of real energy/objects in real space-time, external to whatever it is that you are.
(2) Acknowledge that the ultimate cause of experience is whatever it is that you are (read what I said about basic philosophy differentiating between real-world & experienced-world.
(3) Acknowledge that, given the above, it is ludicrous to do advanced physics with the idea that the cause of specific phenomena should be "out there" amongst the experience that one is observing.
(4) Immediately render all theories which seek to explain the experienced being with 'something' that one can experience, as obsolete.
For example, the experience of the thing which we label "the brain" should not be researched as a potential source of experiences such as sensations; thoughts; feelings. Ultimately, no thing within experience causes any of that experience.
Similarly, all theories related to the cause of the experienced-world should revolve around whatever it is that you are. Hence, theories such as the big-bang theory are claptrap.
(5) Associate known physical laws such as Relativity and QM with The Self and the experienced-world, rather than with a real world. That way, confusions and incompatabilities fade away.
(6) Re-direction changes strategy. For example, less time (in fact, zero time)
and research and $$$ are wasted on useless research regarding a real world that we cannot even observe.
(7) Redirection gets science out of a cul-de-sac that it has been in for about 80 years. Relativity is understood within the context of the absolute-Self and experience being relative to it. QM makes sense once one relates the Self as the ultimate source of quantum energy.
(8) Atheism - which promotes selfishness since it promotes futility and purposelessness - dies amongst the intellectual since it no longer has science to use as a crutch.
(9) A SERIOUS metaphysical enquiry into the nature of whatever it is that you are ensues, since no-longer are people who talk about the Self as the ultimate source of all [experienced] creation, thought of as idiots.
(10) Truth quickly follows. Mankind reaches his zenith.

I tell you this - scientific-reform is required before mankind can move on - and I'm not talking about technological leaps. There is more here at-stake than you witch-hunters can even begin to understand.
The biggest revolution that mankind will ever undergo awaits the changing-mindset of science.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I was thinking about reading the OP until I saw the exclamation points.

~~ Paul

And the misuse of "it's" as a possessive.

 

[Tricky]

(1) Acknowledge that what is observed is the experienced-world of ordered sensations that yield the appearance of a world... as opposed to assuming that what is observed is a real world full of real energy/objects in real space-time, external to whatever it is that you are.
(2) Acknowledge that the ultimate cause of experience is whatever it is that you are (read what I said about basic philosophy differentiating between real-world & experienced-world.
(3) Acknowledge that, given the above, it is ludicrous to do advanced physics with the idea that the cause of specific phenomena should be "out there" amongst the experience that one is observing.
(4) Immediately render all theories which seek to explain the experienced being with 'something' that one can experience, as obsolete.
For example, the experience of the thing which we label "the brain" should not be researched as a potential source of experiences such as sensations; thoughts; feelings. Ultimately, no thing within experience causes any of that experience.
Similarly, all theories related to the cause of the experienced-world should revolve around whatever it is that you are. Hence, theories such as the big-bang theory are claptrap.
(5) Associate known physical laws such as Relativity and QM with The Self and the experienced-world, rather than with a real world. That way, confusions and incompatabilities fade away.
(6) Re-direction changes strategy. For example, less time (in fact, zero time)
and research and $$$ are wasted on useless research regarding a real world that we cannot even observe.
(7) Redirection gets science out of a cul-de-sac that it has been in for about 80 years. Relativity is understood within the context of the absolute-Self and experience being relative to it. QM makes sense once one relates the Self as the ultimate source of quantum energy.
(8) Atheism - which promotes selfishness since it promotes futility and purposelessness - dies amongst the intellectual since it no longer has science to use as a crutch.
(9) A SERIOUS metaphysical enquiry into the nature of whatever it is that you are ensues, since no-longer are people who talk about the Self as the ultimate source of all [experienced] creation, thought of as idiots.
(10) Truth quickly follows. Mankind reaches his zenith.

I tell you this - scientific-reform is required before mankind can move on - and I'm not talking about technological leaps. There is more here at-stake that you witch-hunters even begin to understand. The biggest revolution that mankind will ever undergo awaits the changing-mindset of science.

So basically, for science to reform, it needs to become woo-wooism. It needs to throw out all notions of reality and causality and replace them with philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It needs to include some sort of God in it's reasoning (which one exactly is not defined). It needs to redefine relativity and quantum mechanics as some undefined and undefinable quality called "self". It needs to eliminate any research that deals with a physical reality (and presumably redirect that money to woo-woo research). Also it needs to embrace metaphysics.

Before we begin this gigantic restructuring of science, can you give us a single, well-evidenced example of where this new definition of science has led to anything remotely useful? Just so we can be assured that we're on the right path, ya know.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It is the job of science to objectively discern the causal agent(s) and order for the world that we experience.

That assumes there is only one type of causality, which is pre-Kantian. What you have asked is a metaphysical question, regarding causality and types of causality. It is most definately not the job of science to answer such questions.

... The key words are those underlined. As I said in the first line of my OP, "Basic philosophy quickly differentiates between the human-experience and the reality of 'our universe'.".

What is "basic philosophy", Darren?

Science claims to be 'objective' yet has assumed that the world which we experience is real - a clear illogical contradiction of this aforementioned basic-philosophy.

Yep, being objective requires an assumption that the objective world is real. Science can quite happily operate under this assumption. It works, for science. Plus, you don't understand the differences between science, materialism and realism. You think these are all the same things, but they aren't.