Connect with us

Why Science is Ridiculous

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by PureOne, Aug 27, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Nevermore

    Nevermore Guest

    Depends what the meaning of IS is.

    Nevermore (the wizard of is)
     
  2. Well, these days, the consensus seems to be, if you can't grab something,
    put it in a bottle, and weigh and measure it, it doesn't exist.

    Does "Science" really acknowledge the role that these "intangibles"
    play in the construction of Reality itself?

    Thanks,
    Rich
     
  3. Tom

    Tom Guest

    Someday you might actually come to realize that "science" already does this.
    It won't be anytime soon, I expect, due to your maintenance of so many
    prejudices and so much willful ignorance.
     
  4. Tom

    Tom Guest

    I can't find anybody at all who makes that claim. Can you? Name some
    names. Cite some sources.
     
  5. Tom

    Tom Guest

    I continue to ridicule your silly fantasies. **** off, troll.
     
  6. Ah, there you are.

    "Evidence".

    I know it's true because I've felt Her presence in my Root Chakra.
    This is prima facie evidence of Her reality, in my universe. There
    is no possible way for me to show you the flow of Kundalini I felt
    when my Chakra opened, especially if you deny the very existence
    of Kundalini itself! You'll _never, ever, ever_ be able to see that
    which you are invested in denial of.

    But, if you choose, you _could_ heal your own denials, judgements,
    etc, and actually _observe_ a larger Reality than what's generally
    known, but it would only be by way of your own perceptions. There
    probably won't be any external demonstrations until enough of us heal our
    denials to actually accomplish a physical manifestation - this would be
    called "Magick."

    Unless, of course, you look at the recent major upheavals as evidence
    of the larger Healing that's taking place as we speak, as Mother moves
    the guilt, denials, and judgements out of her own energy field.

    Thanks,
    Rich
     

  7. No, you're still not getting it.

    The _perception_ happens in the brain. Then, when the brain is done
    interpreting it, it sends its interpretation of its perceptions to
    the rest of the sensory system, which reacts accordingly, JUST AS
    IF IT HAD REALLY BEEN IMPACTED BY WHATEVER THE BRAIN IS IMAGINING
    HAS IMPACTED IT. The body reacts, the brain perceives the reaction,
    and makes an incontrovertible, merciless judgement as to what that
    reaction means, and body is left sitting there taking the blame for
    the errors of the mind.

    Thanks,
    Rich
     
  8. I think I already do, and am trying to get other people to grasp the
    magnitude of the question.

    The "six" can be explained away by the crystal formation process itself,
    but that doesn't explain anything, because howcome that's the way H2O
    molecules form crystals. But why do H2O molecules form crystals that way?
    Because of the shape of the molecule. Why is the molecule shaped that way?
    Because of the valence pattern of the electron shell of the Oxygen atom.
    Why do atoms have valence shells, and why do they have a shape?

    And so on, and so on, and so on...

    Thanks!
    Rich
     
  9. Come on, Bob. I never said anything about "only" anything! I'm asking for
    the purpose of getting people to think about the question, but apparently
    these days, "attempting to get people to think" is sort of a lost cause.
    (I know there's some pithy cliche that's supposed to go there, but all
    I can think of is "Pyrrhic victory", which isn't even close, maybe
    "Branson's battle" or something.)

    And, how _does_ the molecule know exactly where to condense so that its
    arm continues to be identical to the others? There's a difference between
    "crystallizing" and "making a snowflake", you know. ;-)

    Thanks,
    Rich
     
  10. You should do some reading on neural networks and you may come to
    realize how easily a simple structure can "remember" (or "feel" if you
    like) a complicated concept.
     
  11. If you look closely, you will see that, in detail, they are not.
     
  12. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    Yes, evidence. For someone who calls himself a
    "philosophizer," you seem amazingly unwilling to actually
    try to tackle some of the basic questions of philosophy.
    For instance, let's start with epistemology, shall we? How
    is it, exactly, we know what we know? How can we have
    any degree of certainty of the correctness of a given belief,
    especially given the readily-observed fact that the human
    mind is very adept at what might crudely be called "fooling
    itself." In short, how do we distinguish what is "true" from
    what we merely think or would like to be true? How do
    we know which of our perceptions, if any, we can actually
    trust, and for those cases where they cannot be trusted -
    are there any procedures we can follow to compensate
    for this? There are endless questions that you really need
    to think about before you can so casually dismiss the
    notion that evidence and reasoning are good tools in the
    search for truth.

    Again, I neither deny nor accept the existence of "kundalini" or
    "chakras" or any of these notions. They're very interesting concepts.
    But I seriously doubt that any of these have been a part of your
    personal belief system since you were born. At some point, you
    decided that these things were "true" (while by necessity deciding
    that certain other things were "false"). If you didn't do this based
    on the evidence available to you at the time, and your own
    reasoning - then how did you make these decisions?
    You clearly make you own "denials, judgement, etc.," as well, as
    is evidenced by:
    Right there is the judgement, on your part, that what you propose
    is a "larger" (presumably, this equates to "superior" or at least
    "more complete" version of reality - and yet, why should anyone
    accept that this is so?

    Imagine that we are both being interviewed by a hypothetical
    alien observer who has absolutely zero existing beliefs in this area;
    we are each asked to explain our particular views of "reality," etc.,
    to this being, so that they can decide which to accept, if any. Why
    should you expect your position to be accepted, simply on the basis
    of a vigorous assertion, if you can't give any reasons behind it?

    Bob M.
     
  13. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    The consensus among what group? Is the above supposed to
    tell us what YOU think "science" is?

    Again, until you can identify just what or who you mean by
    "science" - and you DO keep using this word in contexts which
    would seem to indicate that you believe it to be a thing or a
    group - there's no way to answer that question. I can't
    possibly ask "science" what he/she/they/it "acknowledges"
    until you tell me just who I should be asking.


    Bob M.
     
  14. Meltdarok

    Meltdarok Guest

    Rich the Philosophizer wrote, On 9/5/2007 6:13 PM:
    Yes I am.
    No problem.
     
  15. Tom

    Tom Guest

    No, not in your universe. In your mental model of the universe. In your
    head. That which may seem true within your model of the universe may not be
    true in the universe outside your model.

    What you feel is evidence, even "prima facie" evidence, if you like, since
    "prima facie" evidence is only one's first impression. However, it's too
    small a sample from which to draw the vast generalizations you do. And not
    only that, there is considerable evidence in the form of the feelings of
    others which contradict those generalizations and you're completely and
    willfully ignoring *that* evidence.
     
  16. The Magpie

    The Magpie Guest

    Science has *always* known that feelings were real. However, it does
    not seem to mean "real" in the sense that you do. Science prefers to
    stick to reality.
     
  17. John Kepler

    John Kepler Guest

    One is called "physical chemistry", the other is "crystallography"....why
    don't you take a course or two!

    John
     
  18. John Kepler

    John Kepler Guest

    It doesn't! It can do nothing else based on the physical chemistry....next
    question!

    There's a difference between
    No, there isn't! That YOU can't seem to understand that is your problem!

    "God does not play dice with the universe" A. Einstein

    John
     
  19. And every time "science" has been proven wrong, it has corrected itself.
    Case closed.
     
  20. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    And that one characteristic, by the way, is what I consider
    to be one of the primary distinctions between the mode of
    thought that we call "scientific," and that which we call
    "religious."

    Wouldn't it be amazing if any organized religion were to actually
    test and retest its basic precepts to the extent that science
    does, and, when an error was found, issued the news of
    that (and the eventual correction) as regularly and as
    publicly?

    Bob M.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-