Why science must eventually reform

[lifegazer]

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.

You don't gettit. Newton was absolutely correct... or at least, he would have been if a real world exists.
The fact is that we do not experience an absolute world. This in itself speaks volumes, for if we do not observe Newton's order then we cannot attribute that which we observe to anything other than that which we are.

Newton is at-odds with Einstein because they both speak of different worlds - the former a real-world and the latter a Self-generated world where every 'thing' moves relatively to the absolute Self. For heavens sake - 'light' is a sensation - a Self-generated experience. Is it any wonder that the relationship between 'light' and the Self is ~constant~?

 

[Tricky]

Is it any wonder that the relationship between 'light' and the Self is ~constant~?

Um... could you give us that exact relationship. I'm a little confused. How much light do you need to make one self?

 

[lifegazer]

So basically, for science to reform, it needs to become woo-wooism.

Science should be objective. To be objective - in this instance - initially requires acknowledging that what is observed is experienced. This leads to all the points that I made.
You call it "woo-wooism" because you are anti-religious. Wanna know something? So am I. I abhor religion.

It needs to throw out all notions of reality and causality and replace them with philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

As much as this hurts - it's just basic philosophy which will identify your world as an experience generated by sensations; thoughts; feelings. None of those three 'things' constitute, in themselves, real objects.
Science is supposed to be a serious and objective search regarding causality and order inherent within this experience. Consequently, unless you're happy to put science on a par with religion, science must reform and abandon all assumptions which equate it's observations with those of a 'real world'.

This is serious stuff Tricky. You need to grow up if you want to move on. You need to take a serious look in the mirror.
This is difficult enough for the proud individual - such as yourself - and hence you can see the mountain which stands before science as an establishment of such proud and clever individuals.

It needs to eliminate any research that deals with a physical reality

Not so. Order exists amongst experience and discerning that order is of benefit with regards manipulating that order for the human good. My gripe is with science which probes ultimate causality yet still persists to look within experience for the answers. The 21st century has brought science to a new frontier and it must reform lest it and we all perish.

 

[lifegazer]

It is most definately not the job of science to answer such questions.

If it is not the job of science to objectively explain the order and cause of the world, then what's the bleedin' point of science? To entertain?

What is "basic philosophy", Darren?

Basic philosophy is rationale which can be explained to the average-Joe using basic language.
I myself have enough faith in the average intelligence of humanity to figure that it aint that hard to explain why sensations, yielding the impression of a world, are completely different to a real world in itself. Though I've forgotten that you like Wittgenwhatshisname because he was fashionable when it was fashionable to negate everything said except everything said by Mr Witt himself. Ha ha... "All words are useless except my own... Don't listen to anything except me". Wittdoodah is more over-rated within philosophy than Ronaldinho is within football. On a par with Maradonna? My a**e. Brit speak.

Yep, being objective requires an assumption that the objective world is real.

How can you call yourself a philosopher????!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're just a preacher mate. Another one. A perpetuater of fiction.

Science can quite happily operate under this assumption.

No, it cannot. It's reached a cul-de-sac... and it cannot excape unless it re-addresses assumptions made centuries ago.

 

[Wowbagger]

Lifegazer, you and I both have one thing in common. We are both experiencing what you might call a "Bad Situation". That Bad Situation is the simple fact that neither one of us knows everything. And, more depressing, neither one of us likely ever will.

There are two ways to deal with this situation, neither of which will ever get us out of it:

1. Make observations about the world, run carefully controlled experiments to research further aspects of the world - and have those experiments repeated as often as possible, because running them only once could yield bias results. The next step is to collect all of that data, and use it to do two things: Build useful models of how the Universe seems to work (granted, they will never be 100% accurate, but at least they will be useful, having been backed up by lots of evidence), and also use that knowledge to help other life forms (including your fellow humans) live longer, healthier lives.

OR

2. Blow that whole idea off, because you've decided nothing is ever worth knowing.

It's really up to you, dude. But, just because you've taken option #2, doesn't mean we who have taken on the challenge of #1 need to reform ourselves. Keep your postmodern drivel yourself!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If it is not the job of science to objectively explain the order and cause of the world, then what's the bleedin' point of science? To entertain?

To answer empirical questions.

 

[Elind]

I'm not saying that science is a waste of time. I'm saying that it cannot denounce religion nor the concept of 'God (The Creator). I'm also saying that it needs to reform for reasons mentioned in my OP.

Science doesn't denounce religion. It's a method of thinking that you obviously haven't learned. As to reforming it, why don't you cut the crap and just admit you are another New Age woowoo who doesn't understand?

 

[Palimpsest]

Y'know, I'd heard much about lifegazer but never read anything of his before this thread--had him on ignore almost immediately. But now I see I've missed out on a world of weird entertainment.

That is all. Carry on.

Newton is at-odds with Einstein because they both speak of different worlds - the former a real-world and the latter a Self-generated world where every 'thing' moves relatively to the absolute Self. For heavens sake - 'light' is a sensation - a Self-generated experience. Is it any wonder that the relationship between 'light' and the Self is ~constant~?

 

[lifegazer]

Make observations about the world,

Real or experienced???????

run carefully controlled experiments to research further aspects of the world

I have no problem with science trying to fath ORDER.

The next step is to collect all of that data, and use it to do two things: Build useful models of how the Universe seems to work

Tell this forum how the universe "works" (least of all, what it is) and I will absolutely destroy your credibility in one short post. Cite ANY scientist(s) you care to mention as your own voice. Doesn't matter to me whether you speak your own words or Dawkins or Sagins or Einsteins - I will obliterate it.

Further, explain to this forum why it is "useful" to come-up with theories such as how a real world came into being when nobody can observe a real world.
While you're at it, explain to this forum why it is "useful" to attribute causality of an experienced-world to something that we might [eventually] experience (dark matter! LOL).

You're a sheep and you can't even hear your own baaaaaaaaaa. Go away. Wake up or stick to arguing with Christians and the like. But not me.

 

[Wowbagger]

Real or experienced???????

As far as science is concerned, there is no distinction. What works, works because it works. Doesn't matter if the world is "real" or "experienced". I admire your attempt at such a distinction, but such mental gymnastics belong in the playground of philosophy. Not science.

I have no problem with science trying to fath ORDER.

Well, okay. But, what does "fath" mean?

Tell this forum how the universe "works" (least of all, what it is) and I will absolutely destroy your credibility in one short post. Cite ANY scientist(s) you care to mention as your own voice. Doesn't matter to me whether you speak your own words or Dawkins or Sagins or Einsteins - I will obliterate it.

Remember, I'm stuck in the same Bad Situation you are. I can not tell you how the Universe works. I could only offer the best estimate science has to offer. And, all science can do is estimate, and we admit it. Fortunately, our estimates get more and more and more accurate as time marches on. Only an ideologist idiot would claim to have the path to Ultimate Truth.

Unfortunately, I happen to have more important things to do, right now, than to type up massive paragraphs to explain the Universe to you. Maybe I will find the time later in the week*. For now, I suggest you read or re-read some good science books, bearing everything we've told you so far, in mind.

*If you are still active in this post.

Further, explain to this forum why it is "useful" to come-up with theories such as how a real world came into being when nobody can observe a real world.
While you're at it, explain to this forum why it is "useful" to attribute causality of an experienced-world to something that we might [eventually] experience (dark matter! LOL).

That computer you're typing your drivel into isn't useful enough for you? That machine came into being through centuries of understanding physics.
And, through our observations of physics (again, doesn't matter if it's "real" or "not"), we also happen to have developed a theory for how our known Universe came into being.

Concisely: If we didn't have the Big Bang theory**, we would not have quantum mechanics. Without quantum mechanics we would never have silicon microchips. Without microchips, no computers, and no Internet. No computers, no methods of calculating complex solutions to possible impending disasters.

FYI, the similar declarations can be made for evolution: without evolution in our pool of knowledge, we would not have most of the modern medicines and treatments we have today.

**It is a theory, of course, which means it is subject to change and adjustment as new evidence is gathered.

You're a sheep and you can't even hear your own baaaaaaaaaa. Go away. Wake up or stick to arguing with Christians and the like. But not me.

Sheep are cute. Don't knock sheep!
I am not scared of you, though. I can argue with you as long as you can handle it.

 

[Tricky]

Science should be objective. To be objective - in this instance - initially requires acknowledging that what is observed is experienced. This leads to all the points that I made.

Well, that might explain your problem. You don't know what objective means. Plus, as has been pointed out to Geoff in his materialism thread, science includes subjective observations which lead to objective evaluation and consensus. That's right. It requires both. It looks like you think that highlighting the word "experienced" makes it somehow magical. It is not. It's just a word with a variety of definitions, one of which is "observed".

You call it "woo-wooism" because you are anti-religious. Wanna know something? So am I. I abhor religion.

Yet you demand that for science to advance it must eliminate atheism? How can you do that without being religious? You contradict yourself at every turn.

As much as this hurts - it's just basic philosophy which will identify your world as an experience generated by sensations; thoughts; feelings. None of those three 'things' constitute, in themselves, real objects.

There's a whole lot of the universe (most of it, in fact) which has nothing whatsoever to do with sensations, thoughts and feelings. Those are functions of a higher brain, a very rare thing in the cosmos. And it looks very likely that they are indeed composed of real objects. I say this because we can manipulate our ST&Fs by using real objects. I can give you an experiment to test this with if you like. It involves tequila.

Science is supposed to be a serious and objective search regarding causality and order inherent within this experience.

No wonder you want to change science. You haven't got a clue what it is. Your "philosophy" has failed you badly, lad.

Consequently, unless you're happy to put science on a par with religion, science must reform and abandon all assumptions which equate it's observations with those of a 'real world'.

LOL. You aren't the first woo-woo to equate science with religion, and you won't be the last. You definitely won't be the most coherant.

This is serious stuff Tricky. You need to grow up if you want to move on. You need to take a serious look in the mirror.

Oh yeah, it's serious all right. Then why can't you answer my question about showing us one concrete thing that your "basic philosophy" has done? And you need to pay Joan Rivers royalties for the "grow up" insult. She used it years before you. Now it is just the childish taunt of a gormless git.

This is difficult enough for the proud individual - such as yourself - and hence you can see the mountain which stands before science as an establishment of such proud and clever individuals.

I'm assuming this was supposed to make sense, but it lacks any kind of clear sentence structure. So you're no good at science, philosophy or creative writing. What are you good at?

Not so. Order exists amongst experience and discerning that order is of benefit with regards manipulating that order for the human good.

That was a little better, but of course, experience is not a collective noun, so I'm assuming you meant "amongst the experienced" which should have been followed by a comma. But I get your basic gist which is that science figures out the order of things. But you are completely wrong about the "human good" part. Science is totally amoral. Its only charge is to determine what is true, and is neutral to whether that truth is "good" or not. "Good" is a moral judgment. Part of that "basic philosophy" course you seem to have failed.

My gripe is with science which probes ultimate causality yet still persists to look within experience for the answers. The 21st century has brought science to a new frontier and it must reform lest it and we all perish.

Your "reformation" as you have described it would lead us back to the dark ages. But science is still steadily plodding along answering questions. Just a few weeks ago it was revealed that science developed a vaccine for cervical cancer. I think I'll continue to let it do what it does best, which is (as Geoff points out) answer empirical questions.

I tell you what though. Why don't you try reforming by renouncing everything you own that was developed by scientists. That would be a symbolic start to your new age. You can start with your computer.

 

[RandFan]

I told you that you would be back. Was I right or what?

 

[Pauliesonne]

While we are partially on the subject of trolls, I want to know if I've proven myself ( to not be a troll )?

 

[c4ts]

Yay, Lifegazer is back! And it seems he hasn't learned anything about either philosophy or science while he was gone. For shame. I was hoping we could discuss Kierkegaard.

 

[Wowbagger]

I'm going to leave you, tonight, with one more thing to stuff into your head:

Don't think of science as "stuck in a cul-de-sac". Think of science as a person running down an infinitely long corridor. Science will NEVER reach the end of the corridor, but each step it takes leads to more discoveries. And, science remains useful, because the discoveries it makes become more and more useful - useful in a practical sense (medicine), and in an explanatory sense (Big Bang theory).

One situation we are finding, though, is that the more we venture down the corridor the less intuitive the concepts become. No one is born with the idea of evolution in their heads. No one is born with knowledge of superstring theory. Certainly no one is born with the ability to understand quantum physics. This is why scientific ideas are so strange to people, and even unaccepted by many.

However, these scientific ideas aren't just pulled from someone's nose: They are all based on evidence: observations, experimental results, etc.

Liefegazer: Your rant about the need to reform science tells us more about your lack of understanding the realm of science, than it does about the limits of science. That is why everyone on this board is so hostile towards you. (Perhaps I have been too hostile, myself?) But, for the sake of your own sanity, please take what everyone (well, almost everyone) on this forum is saying, to heart, without assumption of malice. Some of us can't help acting like jerks when someone seems to be rambling nonsense.

 

[Mojo]

You're a sheep and you can't even hear your own baaaaaaaaaa. Go away.

I'm not saying that lifegazer is a waste of time*. I'm saying that it cannot denounce sheep nor the concept of 'sheep'. I'm also saying that it needs to reform.









*Although I may be thinking it.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

lifegazer,

Clearly, you haven't consulted the authors I suggested in an earlier post. You keep harping on about how science is supposed to be objective, but the subjective experience - as mediated through our sense mechanisms - of individual scientists prevents such objectivity.

I have three questions in this context:

(1) How can you be sure that most scientists are unaware that their experience of the world is subjective? How do you know that many of them are not deeply troubled by this same question? Have you tried to establish how a scientist might reconcile such doubt with the principles of his chosen profession?

(2) How can you validly extrapolate from the fact that individual scientists' experience of the world may be subjective to the conclusion that their collective appraisal is similarly hampered?

(3) If all peoples', who include scientists, experience of the world is subjective, then how can we possibly hope to establish any criteria by which objectivity can be gauged?

If our senses are the arbitrator of "what's out there," then no instrument we insert between the world and our perception of it can in any way assist in judging what the stuff "out there" really is. The nature of the "real stuff" will remain forever obscure, and any call for science reform based on an argument of the "real stuff's nature" is a futile gesture. Science can then only progress from a utilitarian perspective.

'Luthon64

 

[Wudang]

I thought you were going to show us all with your big thing you had planned to prove you are god?

Here, I'll quote you if your absolute memory is off, mr. absolute god:



source.


Now you told us:



source.


Which seems to suggest you would only return here if it is of important to us here.

What's so important that you're back now?

Or are you just trolling again?

Worth repeating, I thought.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not saying that science is a waste of time. I'm saying that it cannot denounce religion nor the concept of 'God (The Creator). I'm also saying that it needs to reform for reasons mentioned in my OP.

They can denounce each other, they have different standards of evidence.

Lets see, praying to Great All Father Mumbledypeg to cure the gangrene in your legs, outcome : sepsis, possible death and amputation.

Treating your infection with anti-biotics: price less.

The is easily resolved,
science deals with apparent behaviors in the observed universe, it determines the behaviors of objects in said apparent universe.

religoin deals with the subject matter of human thought, feelings and experiences in the apparent obsrved universe.

The sets might overlap but they are not totaly inclusive of each other. Therefore the set of science may say that there are observed behaviors that are lacking in evidence of scientific proof, the religous can say that they have a sperate standard of proof.

Therefore they can both carry on thier merry way, science can denounce religion, religion can denounce sceince.

They are both right, they are both wrong. Both at the same time.

welcome back Lifegazer, have you met Yrreg, he has recently started down your path, I think you could help his thinking a lot.

How is your hamster?

 

[Dancing David]

Real or experienced???????

I have no problem with science trying to fath ORDER.

Tell this forum how the universe "works" (least of all, what it is) and I will absolutely destroy your credibility in one short post. Cite ANY scientist(s) you care to mention as your own voice. Doesn't matter to me whether you speak your own words or Dawkins or Sagins or Einsteins - I will obliterate it.

Further, explain to this forum why it is "useful" to come-up with theories such as how a real world came into being when nobody can observe a real world.
While you're at it, explain to this forum why it is "useful" to attribute causality of an experienced-world to something that we might [eventually] experience (dark matter! LOL).

When you explain why you don't step into traffic.

Ooooh, something mysterious, there is evidence of the orbits of objects to suggest that dark energy exists, what evidence is there for Lord High Whimpy Bufo, the magnificent creator of the Known Multiverse, and his Most Marvelous Prophet , Keeper of the hamster of Wisdom, Keen Edge of Cutting Rudeness, Master of Obstufication , the Ultimate Acheivement of the Universe: Lifegrazer. (V.2 that is.)

You're a sheep and you can't even hear your own baaaaaaaaaa. Go away. Wake up or stick to arguing with Christians and the like. But not me.

Wow, so quickly reduced to just rudeness, such a shame, the previous Lifegazer could at least string intelligent thoughts together, it would appear that V.2 is in need of some fine tuning.

Have you perhaps become a fundamentalist of some sort?