Comparison: Science vs. gazerism

[Z]

From the other thread, here... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870968619#post1870968619)

Now, anybody with a brain (boom boom) must surely see why science (the establishment of scientists and it's habitual methods and bias towards the reality of things) has hit a brick wall.

It seems Darren would like science to disband, essentially. Certainly, if scientists cannot study the relationships and patterns within their sensations, and the objective existence of such things by comparison with other entities, then what can science study?

Darren seems to imply - yet again - that the cause of EVERYTHING is simply GOD - but God is completely able to be sensed or detected. So what, in Darren's view, does that leave to study?

If science were ever to have this 'paradigm shift', then science would simply end. There would be nothing to study, essentially.

So let's compare what science has accomplished versus what non-science has accomplished.

First, what is non-science? Let's consider any non-reality-based philosophy as a non-science; religion, certainly; and mysticism. Granted, in each case they may use science to move ahead, but let's consider them when they are not using science, and compare accomplishments.

Let's see - science is responsible for our improved health, longer lifespans, and higher quality of life. Religion has never improved our health, unless one counts faith-healing, and there is little solid evidence that faith-healing actually works. The same is true of mysticism.

Science has helped cure and treat innumerable medical conditions. Has religion done the same, without using science? Philosophy, perhaps?

Through the science of agriculture, men learned to grow plants for food, and to grow surplus food. So now there is more food available than ever for the world population. What has religion done? Oh, yes, that's right - created major divisions in the world preventing food from being distributed evenly. Philosophy? Well, politics - as a branch of philosophy - has certainly been instrumental in preventing food from reaching the hungry.

Through other sciences, we have air conditioning; refrigeration; stoves, ovens, and safe cookware; working plumbing and a ready supply of water; lights at night, heat in the winter, comfortable clothes; sunblock, toothpaste, and eyeglasses; artificial limbs, wheelchairs, etc.

And on and on and on.

Now, what advances has religion, philosophy, or mysticism managed without employing science? Honestly, I'm not even sure if major social advances have come without some science in them - for example, the Bible suggests that slavery is an acceptable practice, and that some humans are superior to others. But genetics tells another tale entirely, and simple biology revealed that humans were all one race. So which was more instrumental to the abolishment of slavery?

(Honestly I'm not sure on that one. For example, clearly Lincoln was influenced by religion, if not the Bible, so this may be an example of an achievement for not-using-science.)

Remember, I'm not just asking about religion or philosophy, I'm asking about these when they do not employ science.

So what advantages do we face if scientists abandon modern science in favor of gazerism? Apparently, a return to the Dark Ages.

And does gazerism have any other benefits? Apparently not.

So why does Darren try so hard to get people to embrace his silliness? Who knows?

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So what advantages do we face if scientists abandon modern science in favor of gazerism? Apparently, a return to the Dark Ages.
You're too kind as to how far back Darren wants to go. Even by the Dark Ages, there was quite some science going on. We had learned how to work metals, build great constructions such as large pyramids and aqueducts, between the greek, the Arabians and the Hindu, great mathematical principals had been discovered, astronomy had already revealed the earth to be round, etc..
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So why does Darren try so hard to get people to embrace his silliness? Who knows?
To get some sort of confirmation that his psychopathic way of thinking is "right", I'd say.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
It seems Darren would like science to disband, essentially.

Don't be silly.

[Kopji]

So why does Darren try so hard to get people to embrace his silliness? Who knows?

We are the unwanted weeds in his philosophical garden. He is not particularly interested in 'converting' us. Studying and understanding us is useful in his ultimate goal to eradicate. He will tolerate us for a while, even nurture us by indulging in discussion. This is like a Gardner who waters weeds to make them easier to remove.

[Z]

OK, Darren, explain, exactly, what it is you want scientists to do.

How shall they do research? What shall their methods be? Are they to sit around in well-lit rooms just thinking all day? Praying to the One? What, exactly, is the form which this scientific revolution must take?

And, having answered that, perhaps you can elucidate for us the wonderous things that will emerge from this new form of science, and how our {percieved} lives will be improved by it.

In fact, help us out here - explain how science, if it has been making a huge mistake all along - has done everything that currently makes our lives longer, happier, healthier, and more interesting? Explain to us why science should undergo revolution when it is precisely science as it exists now that has provided for us the very means by which most people lead such wonderful lives?

Of course, the modern age isn't 'wonderful' to you - all you see is rampant atheism. But given how much horror religion has brought to the world versus how little actual improvement it has created, why is atheism such a bad thing?

Besides, even if every single sentient being (excuse me, 'experience of being') were to be atheist, this wouldn't kill God, now would it?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
...rampant atheism...Apparently (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm) it's 2% and I remember reading somewhere else it's declining.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Let's see - science is responsible for our improved health, longer lifespans, and higher quality of life.

You mean the ~percieved~ improved health, longer lifespans, and higher quality of life.

[Z]

Originally posted by Ryokan
You mean the ~percieved~ improved health, longer lifespans, and higher quality of life.

Yeah, yeah.

And to Hethe''the'tht''theaht''aghch...

I supposed that's 'rampant !~~percieved~~! atheism, too?

[Robin]

Yep gazer has always been rather coy about saying what scientists will do differently after his revolution. I suppose they will be using more capital letters and exclamation marks in their research papers and saying "That is a FACT squire" when they don't have any actual evidence.

But of course science is just the study of the sensed order among sensed things - but I for am happy that it can alleviate the sense of pain (and prevent the sense of death) caused by sensed germs, sensed virus's and sensed cancers.

[Iacchus]

So, what else would we know, outside from the fact that we are consciously aware of it? Isn't this in fact all that Science studies ... "the order" derived from our "sensed awareness" of things? Yep, it's consciousness all the way up, and consciousness all the way down. Meaning, we are wholly bound to what we know via consciousness. Neither can we claim anything contrary to exist outside of its bounds.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Yeah, yeah.

And to Hethe''the'tht''theaht''aghch...

I supposed that's 'rampant !~~percieved~~! atheism, too? Jeez, Zaayrdragon! How difficult is it to type ethethethethethethethethethethethethethethetheth? It's not even difficult to pronounce: produce the sound 'e' as in metal, while slightly projecting tongue; Raise lower jaw untill tongue hits teeth intermittently and repeatedly.
To type succesfully, place left ring-finger on the 'e' key on your 'qwerty' keyboard, the left middle finger on the 't' key, and finally the left index finger on the 'h' key; make downward waving motion starting with the ring finger; repeat to taste.

voilá!

And I mean ~"'perceived'"~!!!! rampancy, as well as ~"'perceived"'~!!!! atheism.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what else would we know, outside from the fact that we are consciously aware of it? Isn't this in fact all that Science studies ... "the order" derived from our "sensed awareness" of things? Yep, it's consciousness all the way up, and consciousness all the way down. Meaning, we are wholly bound to what we know via consciousness. Neither can we claim anything contrary to exist outside of its bounds.

Well said

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what else would we know, outside from the fact that we are consciously aware of it? Isn't this in fact all that Science studies ... "the order" derived from our "sensed awareness" of things? Yep, it's consciousness all the way up, and consciousness all the way down. Meaning, we are wholly bound to what we know via consciousness. Neither can we claim anything contrary to exist outside of its bounds. But the point is, we cannot deny the existence of anything outside of it's bounds either. And at the end of the day our experiences appear to tell us that something exists outside of our awareness. It's evidence, but Lifegazer refuses to see this. He simply equates "not proven true" to "proven not true", which is silly and wrong.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
But the point is, we cannot deny the existence of anything outside of it's bounds either.


So if it can't be said to exist and it can't be denied then perhaps it's a meaningless concept?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
So if it can't be said to exist and it can't be denied then perhaps it's a meaningless concept? No, because daily life is evidence of external reality. It is the presumed inner workings science analyses based on this evidence.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
No, because daily life is evidence of external reality. It is the presumed inner workings science analyses based on this evidence.

Sorry to be repeating myself, but for the concept of evidence to work we require the assumption that an external reality exists, so to claim that we have evidence for its existence is circular. Like you said, the existence of this reality can't be proven or not proven so I suggest we should try to do away with the concept and try to formulate a philosophy that does not require this assumption. The fewer assumptions the better right?

[Z]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Jeez, Zaayrdragon! How difficult is it to type ethethethethethethethethethethethethethethetheth? It's not even difficult to pronounce: produce the sound 'e' as in metal, while slightly projecting tongue; Raise lower jaw untill tongue hits teeth intermittently and repeatedly.
To type succesfully, place left ring-finger on the 'e' key on your 'qwerty' keyboard, the left middle finger on the 't' key, and finally the left index finger on the 'h' key; make downward waving motion starting with the ring finger; repeat to taste.

voilá!

And I mean ~"'perceived'"~!!!! rampancy, as well as ~"'perceived"'~!!!! atheism.

Well, I'm sorry, H'ehtethethethhehehthehhehethhthththtthshsheheahge h4ahehgoleleleleethepiteth...

:D

Or is that ~"'perceived"'~!!!! H'ehtethethethhehehthehhehethhthththtthshsheheahge h4ahehgoleleleleethepiteth?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, I'm sorry, H'ehtethethethhehehthehhehethhthththtthshsheheahge h4ahehgoleleleleethepiteth...

:D

Or is that ~"'perceived"'~!!!! H'ehtethethethhehehthehhehethhthththtthshsheheahge h4ahehgoleleleleethepiteth?
Clearly you need some ~"'perceived"'~!!!! practice.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Sorry to be repeating myself, but for the concept of evidence to work we require the assumption that an external reality exists

Oh, no. Not at all. Actually, what is needed is the consistency of "whatever that is".

That said, the very notions about "internal" and "external" are absurd. But thats another story.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Oh, no. Not at all. Actually, what is needed is the consistency of "whatever that is".


Do you mean a consistency of certain experiences we label as "physical"? If so I think I agree.

But I meant "evidence" that refers to something existing independently of experience (which is the most common meaning of the word), in which case the assumption that experience independent reality exists must be made.


That said, the very notions about "internal" and "external" are absurd. But thats another story.

Again, I agree.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
So if it can't be said to exist and it can't be denied then perhaps it's a meaningless concept? God, the spirit world, and the physical world are not meaningless concepts. As long as humans have concepts anyway. But the value of some concepts exceed others. The care of your children in the physical world, for instance, is a valued concept. So valued that if other entities perceive you are not doing so they will deprive you of your children and your liberty to interact with the physical world.
Originally posted by davidsmith73
Sorry to be repeating myself, but for the concept of evidence to work we require the assumption that an external reality exists, so to claim that we have evidence for its existence is circular. Like you said, the existence of this reality can't be proven or not proven so I suggest we should try to do away with the concept and try to formulate a philosophy that does not require this assumption. The fewer assumptions the better right? Even the idealist assumes a reality. All the other entities he perceives are either physical, spiritual, or nonexistent hallucinations. Without an assumption of a self capable of having ideas and thought the idealist cannot tell if he is a first order extension of the consciousness of God or a second order creation of some artistic angel, or a hallucination created by a lower form of life in some strange dream.

For some reason idealist humans assume they are first order extensions of the consciousness of their God but there is no evidence of that. They assume an existence where everything must be, to some extent or other, a first level extension of their God. Even while they know they are capable of manufacturing worlds in their own dreams.

In other words the idealist is making plenty of unsupportable assumptions. It's hard to say who makes the fewest assumptions. Lg ignorantly says he makes none. Obviously idealists are no closer to a good articulation of the truth - even if, by some weird luck, they are found later to be an inch or two closer than materialists.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Sorry to be repeating myself, but for the concept of evidence to work we require the assumption that an external reality exists, so to claim that we have evidence for its existence is circular. Like you said, the existence of this reality can't be proven or not proven so I suggest we should try to do away with the concept and try to formulate a philosophy that does not require this assumption. The fewer assumptions the better right? Hmmmm..... If I assume that the external world is real then I can use that assumption to gain insight of at least what I perceive is the external world and improve my life and the lives of those around me. The assumption bears fruit whereas not making the assumption takes me no where. In fact the assumption is hard not to make. When I'm hungry I eat. It seems far more likely that I have to pretend that the external world is not real than to pretend that it is. Pain is consistent and many such pains are unrelenting and worsen over time if not addressed. So I have two choices. Assume the external world is real or assume that it is not. If I assume the latter I still am forced to live as though it is. I have no choice. Which is to say I have to pretend the keyboard I'm typing on right now doesn't exist and the desire to eat breakfast is not real if, that is, I accept gazerism or any other similar philosophies all the while typing and eating and carrying out all of those mundane chores that life forces on us. Hey, what am I going to believe; [list=1] A philosophy that says we don't know if the external world is real but we are forced to live as thought it is.

A philosophy that says the external world is not real but we are forced to live as though it is.

That my senses don't deceive me and the real world is, by and large, as it seems and I don't have to pretend anything. I can live my life as I always have and always will regardless and there are no contradictions or silly games. By assuming that the external world is real I can improve my life and be happy. If I assume that I will "really" go to jail if I don't obey the law. That I will suffer if I don't take proactive stances in life. That I can't just curl up in bed and make the world go away when I so desperately want to do just that sometimes.[/list=1] You tell me, what assumption do you make? Yes, there is evidence that the external world is real. That evidence you can only ignore at your own discomfort or peril. Lock yourself in a room sometime without food, water or toilet for any length of time and then you tell me if there is evidence of an external world.

[Robin]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Sorry to be repeating myself, but for the concept of evidence to work we require the assumption that an external reality exists, so to claim that we have evidence for its existence is circular. Like you said, the existence of this reality can't be proven or not proven so I suggest we should try to do away with the concept and try to formulate a philosophy that does not require this assumption. The fewer assumptions the better right?
No, the only assumption required is that other people than yourself have thoughts, emotions, - consciousness - that they consist of more than the outward sense data you have of them

If they don't have consciousness then you wrote the works of Bach, painted the Mona Lisa and wrote the poems of Keats - then promptly forgot how to do those things.

Now if that seems unlikely then you have to admit that other individuals have thoughts and emotions - that there are experiences besides just the ones you have. In fact nearly every Idealist philosopher has assumed that other people have thoughts and emotions. The fact that you are participating here indicates that you have already made this assumption.

Once you have accepted this then you have to accept that things that are not people have existence independent of people - everybody sees the Sun from a slightly different viewpoint but everybody sees the Sun.

So once you have accepted that people are distinct and perceived objects are distinct from people then you have to accept scientific data on the consistency of observations from distinct individuals.

In other words if you accept the Idealistic viewpoint that there is only consciousness then there is only your consciousness. But once you accept the very reasonable assumption that there are other consciousnesses then you have to accept that there is something else than consciousness

Then the whole Idealist edifice comes crashing down

[c4ts]

What? Science is always running into brick walls. With the force of a wrecking ball. That's why they call them "breakthroughs."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
What? Science is always running into brick walls. With the force of a wrecking ball. That's why they call them "breakthroughs." Too bad Science is wholly contingent upon what we see in our minds. In which case how do we know that these breakthroughs are not just imaginary? ;) In other words, what's the point in imparting meaning to something that only "we" can see?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hmmmm..... If I assume that the external world is real then I can use that assumption to gain insight of at least what I perceive is the external world and improve my life and the lives of those around me. The assumption bears fruit whereas not making the assumption takes me no where. In fact the assumption is hard not to make. When I'm hungry I eat. It seems far more likely that I have to pretend that the external world is not real than to pretend that it is. Pain is consistent and many such pains are unrelenting and worsen over time if not addressed. So I have two choices. Assume the external world is real or assume that it is not. This is the purpose of religion, however (or philosophy), because it's still required that you make that assumption. Obviously, since we have to make that assumption, there must be more to it than what we believe.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is the purpose of religion, however (or philosophy), because it's still required that you make that assumption. Obviously, since we have to make that assumption, there must be more to it than what we believe. What? I don't understand.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RandFan
So I have two choices. Assume the external world is real or assume that it is not.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus


I disagree. There is also (at least) the option about our concepts being wrong, since the beginning.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Originally posted by RandFan
So I have two choices. Assume the external world is real or assume that it is not. I'm sorry, I still don't see it. Please bear with me. How does such an assumption relate to religion? Why do you say "it is the purpose of religion"?

Are you talking about the classical "why am I here" question? If so I don't see why my question is relevant. Further, my question was not meant to draw any conclusions other than that of practical benifit to me. And at least two people have responded why an assumption of no self might be benificial so there is a potentially appreciable and practical benifit.

Assuming that it is the purpose of religion to answer said assumption then what is the answer and why should I accept it?