Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Why Science is Ridiculous

N

Nevermore

Jan 1, 1970
0
In said:
From: "Bob Myers" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.religion.wicca,sci.environment,sci.geo.
geology,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Why Science is Ridiculous
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:03:24 -0600
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company




Whatever gave you the impression that "science" doesn't
already?

Again, just what do you think "science" IS, anyway?
Depends what the meaning of IS is.

Nevermore (the wizard of is)
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Whatever gave you the impression that "science" doesn't
already?

Again, just what do you think "science" IS, anyway?

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
 
T

Tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
Cool! So one day, "science" might actually acknowledge that feelings
are real?

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.
 
T

Tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
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.

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

Tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
And, do you continue to deny The Mother of Everything?

I continue to ridicule your silly fantasies. **** off, troll.
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
It's not a denial to ask for evidence and reasoning in
support of a proposition. However, a proposition which
comes without either evidence or reasoning is a mere
assertion which, at that stage, should be neither accepted
nor denied. It's incomplete, and not yet worthy of serious
consideration.

If you would like to describe what you mean by "Mother
of Everything," and provide your evidence and reasoning
which would compel someone to accept that assertion,
I'm sure many people here would find it interesting.

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
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer wrote, On 9/4/2007 8:31 PM:

The emotion must start in the brain as your hearing registers the
music first. Of course there is sitting on top of a sub-woofer as well,
but most people sit for enough away when listening to the music you have
specified. Even still, the physical effects of emotions are broadcast
from the brain first, though that process may be very, very quick.


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
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
THIS....

is an excellent question.

On the other hand, THIS


...is not, due an unwarranted assumption buried within it.


If you'd really like to know, why not start with a different
question altogether:

Why six?

But...DO you really want to know?

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
 
R

Rich the Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, I've seen a snowflake.

If you believe that the water molecules "knowing" what those
on the other arms are doing is the only possible explanation
for this symmetry, I would like to suggest that you're not
thinking hard enough.

Simpler, analogous question: what causes the symmetry in
a salt crystal?

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
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

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.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
Have you ever seen a snowflake? Howcome all six arms are the same as
each other?

If you look closely, you will see that, in detail, they are not.
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ah, there you are.

"Evidence".

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.

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.

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?
But, if you choose, you _could_ heal your own denials, judgements,

You clearly make you own "denials, judgement, etc.," as well, as
is evidenced by:
etc, and actually _observe_ a larger Reality than what's generally

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.
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
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.

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

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

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.
 
T

Tom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich the Philosophizer said:
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.

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.
 
T

The Magpie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
Cool! So one day, "science" might actually acknowledge that feelings
are real?
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.
 
J

John Kepler

Jan 1, 1970
0
Have you ever seen a snowflake? Howcome all six arms are the same as
each other?

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

John
 
J

John Kepler

Jan 1, 1970
0
And, how _does_ the molecule know exactly where to condense so that its
arm continues to be identical to the others?

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

There's a difference between
"crystallizing" and "making a snowflake", you know.

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
 
P

Peder B. Pels

Jan 1, 1970
0
PureOne said:
Everyone knows that science has been proven wrong time and again,

And every time "science" has been proven wrong, it has corrected itself.
Case closed.
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
And every time "science" has been proven wrong, it has corrected itself.
Case closed.

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.
 
Top