Why science must eventually reform

lifegazer · 12th June 2006, 05:17 PM

Basic philosophy quickly differentiates between the human-experience and the reality of 'our universe': subjective inner-experience as opposed to objective actual-reality. They are not the same.
For those of you of a level to understand this, let's examine why science needs to reform...

Scientists are human too. They observe the universe through sense-based experience. They cannot escape their own experience of the universe.
They cannot experiment with or contemplate anything other than the sensed-universe. Even their tools and templates exist within their experience and measure parameters and discern laws (order) amongst that experience.
Every scientific understanding or theory of 'the universe' should relate to this fact that the universe we observe is Self-experienced... but it doesn't (hence the need for reform - more later).
No science relates to a 'real world' because no scientist can observe a 'real world'.
In the whole history of philosophy, there is not a single sound-argument which promotes the reality of our universe beyond the experience of it (btw, such a "sound-argument" is not something which negates the irrational nature of individual religious ideas, or 'religion' as a whole).

What is science doing when it denounces religion? Perhaps philosophy can denounce religion, but science cannot. Certainly, science cannot denounce the idea that 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced - created this universal experience.

Closely observe science. It's theories ASSUME the realistic nature of everything that is observed. Consequently, it's theories mirror this ASSUMPTION.

Consequently, some current theories run-along the line that 'the universe' of real objects existing in real space-time came into being from and extended into NOTHING. Philosophically, such theories can only be judged - with all due respect - as retarded. Such are the consequences of assuming a reality which we cannot experience nor rationalise.
I'll just mention some more important rational blunders:-

1) 'Brains' (objects within experience), are the cause of experience!!!
2) QM - real particles within the real universe, have the ability to emerge from nothing. Yet no scientist has ever observed a real particle!!!!!!!!!
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.

Science has progressed so far that it's walked up it's own ass via assumptions of the reality of the world. It's been corrupted by such assumptions. It's theories revolve around such assumptions. Any scientist that mentions 'God' is systematically ridiculed and castigated. Only scientists such as Dawkins are popular amongst the materialistic masses.

It's gotten beyond a joke - not just because it's wrong (science should not be based upon assumption, like the religions it's members have consistently mocked) - but because until 'science' formally reforms to a position obvious from this post, humanity will not progress.
Okay, religion - as we know it - is not the answer. But neither is science - as we know it.

Reform is inevitable. What say thee?

Z · 12th June 2006, 05:22 PM

You've said all this before. It's all been trashed before. Just because you took a hiatus doesn't mean we've forgotten this.

But if you really want to start back at square one, ALL OVER AGAIN...

Gee.... humanity has progressed better with science than without it. What does that tell you?

lifegazer · 12th June 2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon

You've said all this before. It's all been trashed before. Just because you took a hiatus doesn't mean we've forgotten this.

But if you really want to start back at square one, ALL OVER AGAIN...

Gee.... humanity has progressed better with science than without it. What does that tell you?

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.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 12th June 2006, 05:36 PM

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

~~ Paul

lifegazer · 12th June 2006, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

~~ Paul

Exclamations are more than justified in a post explaining why science needs a revolution.
Perhaps you were hoping I would whisper so as not to be heard.

Z · 12th June 2006, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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.

Nor does Science denounce religion or the concept of God. Rather, Science has declared it has little to say on these subjects, as evidence is lacking. Period.

As for the 'reasons' mentioned above, they've all been thoroughly trounced before. Completely. Repeatedly.

Or would you like to finally finish the topic, started shortly before your Fall, and provide your assumption-free premises? Luckily for you, that topic has finally fallen into archival status... but you could still answer Piscavore's question instead...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=41341

BTW - do brains exist, lifegazer?

Z · 12th June 2006, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Exclamations are more than justified in a post explaining why science needs a revolution.
Perhaps you were hoping I would whisper so as not to be heard.

Exclamations are irrelevant clap-trap. Text messages are neither shouted nor whispered. And a loud proclamation is no more true than a quiet one.

First, do you understand what science is? Let's start from there.

Give us your understanding of what science is. Completely.

Dark Jaguar · 12th June 2006, 06:21 PM

All science ever claimed to do was generate a framework of how the world as we seem to experience it appears to work based on our observations. There may not be a "world" out there, but our observations don't seem to betray that.

What is the definition of science you are going with in your original post?

Upchurch · 12th June 2006, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

\In the whole history of philosophy, there is not a single sound-argument which promotes the reality of our universe beyond the experience of it (btw, such a "sound-argument" is not something which negates the irrational nature of individual religious ideas, or 'religion' as a whole).

Ah, who said that it does?

Before we start fixing something, we should make sure that there is a problem.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

What is science doing when it denounces religion?

I seem to recall a number of recent events where religion has denounced science, but I can't seem to recall the reverse. What scientific theory denounces religion?

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Perhaps philosophy can denounce religion, but science cannot. Certainly, science cannot denounce the idea that 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced - created this universal experience.

Maybe, maybe not. I still don't recall the theorm that addresses 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Closely observe science. It's theories ASSUME the realistic nature of everything that is observed. Consequently, it's theories mirror this ASSUMPTION.

This is true. Every idea is based on some assumption. Do I need to remind you what assumption your ideas in the past have been based on? Or perhaps even the assumptions your OP?

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Consequently, some current theories run-along the line that 'the universe' of real objects existing in real space-time came into being from and extended into NOTHING. Philosophically, such theories can only be judged - with all due respect - as retarded.

That may have something to do with this overly simplistic summary you've presented. If you think this is all there is to it, you've presented a strawman argument. If you understand that there is more to it, I'd have to ask where, specifically, the theory goes wrong.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Such are the consequences of assuming a reality which we cannot experience nor rationalise.

um, you just said that it was the sensed world that we assume is real is something we, well, sense. How is that not experiencing it? As for the rationalizing, that's what science is: the application of reason to what we experience.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

I'll just mention some more important rational blunders:-

1) 'Brains' (objects within experience), are the cause of experience!!!

Interesting. Who claims this?

Originally Posted by lifegazer

2) QM - real particles within the real universe, have the ability to emerge from nothing. Yet no scientist has ever observed a real particle!!!!!!!!!

uh, no.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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.

heh. ah, I'll have to admit that I've missed your imaginativeness. Scientists understand exactly why Relativity is at odds with Newton's laws of motions. In fact, the two theories agree at slow speeds.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Science has progressed so far that it's walked up it's own ass via assumptions of the reality of the world. It's been corrupted by such assumptions. It's theories revolve around such assumptions. Any scientist that mentions 'God' is systematically ridiculed and castigated. Only scientists such as Dawkins are popular amongst the materialistic masses.

Evidence of this?

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Reform is inevitable. What say thee?

Well, let's make sure something is broken before we try to fix it. Where does science denounce religion?

fuelair · 12th June 2006, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Exclamations are more than justified in a post explaining why science needs a revolution.
Perhaps you were hoping I would whisper so as not to be heard.

drivel is drivel is drivel.

Science (at least in my understanding of it having done and taught it a number of years now) assumes only that for something to be useful/correct/true in science it must be testable BY STANDARD REPLICATIBLE METHODS. Since none of these methods are big secrets, complaining that scientists - and sceptics - won't accept the "truth"(well, what you seem to be willing to accept without any proof to be the truth) is silly.

I do not claim that what you believe is true isn't - though I really, REALLY doubt that any of it is - I merely note that it does not meet logically developed methods for being verifiable.

Also, loudness does not equal truth (see J. Goebbells on that topic), it just equals loudness. Truth shines out quietly but with persistance.

SuperCoolGuy · 12th June 2006, 07:50 PM

Okay folks, can we wrap this up . . .

Originally Posted by lifegazer

What is science doing when it denounces religion?

It's not.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Reform is inevitable. What say thee?

No reform. Drink some cocoa.

hgc · 12th June 2006, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by SuperCoolGuy

...
No reform. Drink some cocoa.

Dutch Reform Church

Dutch Process Cocoa

What's your agenda, clog-boy?

Ducky · 12th June 2006, 08:22 PM

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:

Quote:

Few of you here (if any) want an absolute-God (a God who is the totality of existence) to exist. Why? Because it spells the end of your human self. It heralds the end of your measly lives and destroys everything contained within them, including your measly families and your measly set of friends. Not to mention your *********** measly countries, you nationalistic dogs.
Yes, nationalism - next to the idolisation of finite Gods - is the numero-uno culprit of all human affections.
Your ignorance is pathetic and yet responsible for all borders/division and war.
Do I care that I offend you? LOL. Do I ****.
This is the end. What are 'they' (the *********** poxy JREF establishment) gonna do to me? Ban me? LOL. What a laugh. Sheep leading the lambs. How sad. How truly sad.

It's over. It's over for you and it's over for me. The stupidity and hypocrisy of this place stinks. That's why I'm going. The sheep are akin to parrots and the lambs are akin to blank-tape recording parrot-speak for a future date.

source.

Now you told us:

Quote:

No. All or nothing. Sunday. Something important happens after that and then I will only return if it is of importance to the people here. But I don't envision that happening unless I find that faith I spoke of earlier.
Best wishes to you, since we have spoke many times.

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?

epepke · 12th June 2006, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Reform is inevitable. What say thee?

This would be a lot more cogent if you were to demonstrate some basic understanding of what science is.

Oh, and it's "what sayest thou."

clarsct · 13th June 2006, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by fowlsound

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?

Glad you mentioned this, because I was about to.

Well, LG, and welcome back, BTW, what say you?

`Bout time we had a proper troll around here. You shoulda SEEN the stuff that filled the void after you left. Not quality at all.

Mojo · 13th June 2006, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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

Would you care to state what this "obvious" position is?

Science studies the observable universe. It makes the assumption that the observations that we can make are consistently related to real objects and events.

What is your alternative?

UndercoverElephant · 13th June 2006, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

Reform is inevitable. What say thee?

I say you are an idiot who doesn't understand basic philosophy of science, and doesn't listen when other people try to teach this to him.

Reform is not inevitable because there is no reform of science that can fix the problem.

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

Go and read "What is this thing called Science?" by Alan Chalmers and just for once, you might actually learn something.

UndercoverElephant · 13th June 2006, 03:41 AM

Lifegazer,

Before you can claim science needs to be reformed you first need to understand the current state of play regarding how science currently defines itself philosophically. You do not know this, or anything about it. You do not know anything about Karl Popper or Imre Lakotos and their attempts to define what science is. You do not know anything about Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend and their deconstruction of the work of Popper and Lakotos. You know nothing whatsoever about the current state of debate in the aftermath of the work of these great men. In short, you are an ignorant little ***** who has about as much right to be calling for a reform of science as Theo Walcott has the right to be part of England's World Cup squad. i.e. none at all.

Let me give you a clue, nappy boy: science is already unable to define itself philosophically. Hence, there is nothing to reform. Science has fuzzy borders already. And there is no way to draw non-fuzzy ones, apart from to declare science to be equivalent to materialism, which is presumably exactly what you don't want. There is no point in reforming science if the thing you are left with after the reformation isn't science anymore. Now read this paragraph again, twice.

alock · 13th June 2006, 05:31 AM

You seem to understand the idea of reform very clearly. Why don't you setup a new 'reformed science centre' and see how much funding you can obtain. I'm sure you will soon be able to prove all the close-minded people on this forum wrong.

Tricky · 13th June 2006, 06:25 AM

Ah, the return of the Prodigal Troll. Kittens for everyone! What say ye?

UndercoverElephant · 13th June 2006, 06:33 AM

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 · 13th June 2006, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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 · 13th June 2006, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

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 · 13th June 2006, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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 · 13th June 2006, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

...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 · 13th June 2006, 09:00 AM

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 · 13th June 2006, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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 · 13th June 2006, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Tirdun

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

bjb · 13th June 2006, 10:26 AM

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

Ducky · 13th June 2006, 10:43 AM

You gonna answer my questions LG?

SuperCoolGuy · 13th June 2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

How many big-bang theories are there?

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

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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.

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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 · 13th June 2006, 11:02 AM

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 · 13th June 2006, 11:13 AM

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

Tirdun · 13th June 2006, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by SuperCoolGuy

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 · 13th June 2006, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

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

Jimbo07 · 13th June 2006, 11:53 AM

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).

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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!

Originally Posted by Doubt

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.

Originally Posted by Tirdun

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 · 13th June 2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

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 · 13th June 2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

~~ Paul

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

Tricky · 13th June 2006, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

(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 · 13th June 2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by lifegazer

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.

Quote:

... 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?

Quote:

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.

12th June 2006, 05:17 PM	#1
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Why science must eventually reform Basic philosophy quickly differentiates between the human-experience and the reality of 'our universe': subjective inner-experience as opposed to objective actual-reality. They are not the same. For those of you of a level to understand this, let's examine why science needs to reform... Scientists are human too. They observe the universe through sense-based experience. They cannot escape their own experience of the universe. They cannot experiment with or contemplate anything other than the sensed-universe. Even their tools and templates exist within their experience and measure parameters and discern laws (order) amongst that experience. Every scientific understanding or theory of 'the universe' should relate to this fact that the universe we observe is Self-experienced... but it doesn't (hence the need for reform - more later). No science relates to a 'real world' because no scientist can observe a 'real world'. In the whole history of philosophy, there is not a single sound-argument which promotes the reality of our universe beyond the experience of it (btw, such a "sound-argument" is not something which negates the irrational nature of individual religious ideas, or 'religion' as a whole). What is science doing when it denounces religion? Perhaps philosophy can denounce religion, but science cannot. Certainly, science cannot denounce the idea that 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced - created this universal experience. Closely observe science. It's theories ASSUME the realistic nature of everything that is observed. Consequently, it's theories mirror this ASSUMPTION. Consequently, some current theories run-along the line that 'the universe' of real objects existing in real space-time came into being from and extended into NOTHING. Philosophically, such theories can only be judged - with all due respect - as retarded. Such are the consequences of assuming a reality which we cannot experience nor rationalise. I'll just mention some more important rational blunders:- 1) 'Brains' (objects within experience), are the cause of experience!!! 2) QM - real particles within the real universe, have the ability to emerge from nothing. Yet no scientist has ever observed a real particle!!!!!!!!! 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. Science has progressed so far that it's walked up it's own ass via assumptions of the reality of the world. It's been corrupted by such assumptions. It's theories revolve around such assumptions. Any scientist that mentions 'God' is systematically ridiculed and castigated. Only scientists such as Dawkins are popular amongst the materialistic masses. It's gotten beyond a joke - not just because it's wrong (science should not be based upon assumption, like the religions it's members have consistently mocked) - but because until 'science' formally reforms to a position obvious from this post, humanity will not progress. Okay, religion - as we know it - is not the answer. But neither is science - as we know it. Reform is inevitable. What say thee?
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

12th June 2006, 05:22 PM	#2
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	You've said all this before. It's all been trashed before. Just because you took a hiatus doesn't mean we've forgotten this. But if you really want to start back at square one, ALL OVER AGAIN... Gee.... humanity has progressed better with science than without it. What does that tell you?
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

12th June 2006, 05:28 PM	#3
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Originally Posted by zaayrdragon You've said all this before. It's all been trashed before. Just because you took a hiatus doesn't mean we've forgotten this. But if you really want to start back at square one, ALL OVER AGAIN... Gee.... humanity has progressed better with science than without it. What does that tell you? 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.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

12th June 2006, 05:36 PM	#4
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	I was thinking about reading the OP until I saw the exclamation points. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

12th June 2006, 05:41 PM	#5
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos I was thinking about reading the OP until I saw the exclamation points. ~~ Paul Exclamations are more than justified in a post explaining why science needs a revolution. Perhaps you were hoping I would whisper so as not to be heard.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

12th June 2006, 06:01 PM	#6
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Originally Posted by lifegazer 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. Nor does Science denounce religion or the concept of God. Rather, Science has declared it has little to say on these subjects, as evidence is lacking. Period. As for the 'reasons' mentioned above, they've all been thoroughly trounced before. Completely. Repeatedly. Or would you like to finally finish the topic, started shortly before your Fall, and provide your assumption-free premises? Luckily for you, that topic has finally fallen into archival status... but you could still answer Piscavore's question instead... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=41341 BTW - do brains exist, lifegazer?
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

12th June 2006, 06:03 PM	#7
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Originally Posted by lifegazer Exclamations are more than justified in a post explaining why science needs a revolution. Perhaps you were hoping I would whisper so as not to be heard. Exclamations are irrelevant clap-trap. Text messages are neither shouted nor whispered. And a loud proclamation is no more true than a quiet one. First, do you understand what science is? Let's start from there. Give us your understanding of what science is. Completely.
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

12th June 2006, 06:21 PM	#8
Dark Jaguar Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,666	All science ever claimed to do was generate a framework of how the world as we seem to experience it appears to work based on our observations. There may not be a "world" out there, but our observations don't seem to betray that. What is the definition of science you are going with in your original post?

12th June 2006, 06:31 PM	#9
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Originally Posted by lifegazer \In the whole history of philosophy, there is not a single sound-argument which promotes the reality of our universe beyond the experience of it (btw, such a "sound-argument" is not something which negates the irrational nature of individual religious ideas, or 'religion' as a whole). Ah, who said that it does? Before we start fixing something, we should make sure that there is a problem. Originally Posted by lifegazer What is science doing when it denounces religion? I seem to recall a number of recent events where religion has denounced science, but I can't seem to recall the reverse. What scientific theory denounces religion? Originally Posted by lifegazer Perhaps philosophy can denounce religion, but science cannot. Certainly, science cannot denounce the idea that 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced - created this universal experience. Maybe, maybe not. I still don't recall the theorm that addresses 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced Originally Posted by lifegazer Closely observe science. It's theories ASSUME the realistic nature of everything that is observed. Consequently, it's theories mirror this ASSUMPTION. This is true. Every idea is based on some assumption. Do I need to remind you what assumption your ideas in the past have been based on? Or perhaps even the assumptions your OP? Originally Posted by lifegazer Consequently, some current theories run-along the line that 'the universe' of real objects existing in real space-time came into being from and extended into NOTHING. Philosophically, such theories can only be judged - with all due respect - as retarded. That may have something to do with this overly simplistic summary you've presented. If you think this is all there is to it, you've presented a strawman argument. If you understand that there is more to it, I'd have to ask where, specifically, the theory goes wrong. Originally Posted by lifegazer Such are the consequences of assuming a reality which we cannot experience nor rationalise. um, you just said that it was the sensed world that we assume is real is something we, well, sense. How is that not experiencing it? As for the rationalizing, that's what science is: the application of reason to what we experience. Originally Posted by lifegazer I'll just mention some more important rational blunders:- 1) 'Brains' (objects within experience), are the cause of experience!!! Interesting. Who claims this? Originally Posted by lifegazer 2) QM - real particles within the real universe, have the ability to emerge from nothing. Yet no scientist has ever observed a real particle!!!!!!!!! uh, no. Originally Posted by lifegazer 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. heh. ah, I'll have to admit that I've missed your imaginativeness. Scientists understand exactly why Relativity is at odds with Newton's laws of motions. In fact, the two theories agree at slow speeds. Originally Posted by lifegazer Science has progressed so far that it's walked up it's own ass via assumptions of the reality of the world. It's been corrupted by such assumptions. It's theories revolve around such assumptions. Any scientist that mentions 'God' is systematically ridiculed and castigated. Only scientists such as Dawkins are popular amongst the materialistic masses. Evidence of this? Originally Posted by lifegazer Reform is inevitable. What say thee? Well, let's make sure something is broken before we try to fix it. Where does science denounce religion?

12th June 2006, 07:01 PM	#10
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,954	No offense but Originally Posted by lifegazer Exclamations are more than justified in a post explaining why science needs a revolution. Perhaps you were hoping I would whisper so as not to be heard. drivel is drivel is drivel. Science (at least in my understanding of it having done and taught it a number of years now) assumes only that for something to be useful/correct/true in science it must be testable BY STANDARD REPLICATIBLE METHODS. Since none of these methods are big secrets, complaining that scientists - and sceptics - won't accept the "truth"(well, what you seem to be willing to accept without any proof to be the truth) is silly. I do not claim that what you believe is true isn't - though I really, REALLY doubt that any of it is - I merely note that it does not meet logically developed methods for being verifiable. Also, loudness does not equal truth (see J. Goebbells on that topic), it just equals loudness. Truth shines out quietly but with persistance.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,954

12th June 2006, 07:50 PM	#11
SuperCoolGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Near the sun Posts: 480	Okay folks, can we wrap this up . . . Originally Posted by lifegazer What is science doing when it denounces religion? It's not. Originally Posted by lifegazer Reform is inevitable. What say thee? No reform. Drink some cocoa.

12th June 2006, 08:11 PM	#12
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,015	Originally Posted by SuperCoolGuy ... No reform. Drink some cocoa. Dutch Reform Church Dutch Process Cocoa What's your agenda, clog-boy?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

12th June 2006, 08:22 PM	#13
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	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: Quote: Few of you here (if any) want an absolute-God (a God who is the totality of existence) to exist. Why? Because it spells the end of your human self. It heralds the end of your measly lives and destroys everything contained within them, including your measly families and your measly set of friends. Not to mention your ********* measly countries, you nationalistic dogs. Yes, nationalism - next to the idolisation of finite Gods - is the numero-uno culprit of all human affections. Your ignorance is pathetic and yet responsible for all borders/division and war. Do I care that I offend you? LOL. Do I . This is the end. What are 'they' (the ********* poxy JREF establishment) gonna do to me? Ban me? LOL. What a laugh. Sheep leading the lambs. How sad. How truly sad. It's over. It's over for you and it's over for me. The stupidity and hypocrisy of this place stinks. That's why I'm going. The sheep are akin to parrots and the lambs are akin to blank-tape recording parrot-speak for a future date. source. Now you told us: Quote: No. All or nothing. Sunday. Something important happens after that and then I will only return if it is of importance to the people here. But I don't envision that happening unless I find that faith I spoke of earlier. Best wishes to you, since we have spoke many times. 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?

12th June 2006, 11:38 PM	#14
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Originally Posted by lifegazer Reform is inevitable. What say thee? This would be a lot more cogent if you were to demonstrate some basic understanding of what science is. Oh, and it's "what sayest thou."
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

13th June 2006, 12:55 AM	#15
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	Originally Posted by fowlsound 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? Glad you mentioned this, because I was about to. Well, LG, and welcome back, BTW, what say you? `Bout time we had a proper troll around here. You shoulda SEEN the stuff that filled the void after you left. Not quality at all.
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

13th June 2006, 02:42 AM	#16
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by lifegazer ...until 'science' formally reforms to a position obvious from this post, humanity will not progress. Would you care to state what this "obvious" position is? Science studies the observable universe. It makes the assumption that the observations that we can make are consistently related to real objects and events. What is your alternative?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

13th June 2006, 03:31 AM	#17
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Originally Posted by lifegazer Reform is inevitable. What say thee? I say you are an idiot who doesn't understand basic philosophy of science, and doesn't listen when other people try to teach this to him. Reform is not inevitable because there is no reform of science that can fix the problem. What do you think science can do apart from admit there are some questions it cannot answer? Nothing, Darren. It can do NOTHING. Go and read "What is this thing called Science?" by Alan Chalmers and just for once, you might actually learn something.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

13th June 2006, 03:41 AM	#18
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Lifegazer, Before you can claim science needs to be reformed you first need to understand the current state of play regarding how science currently defines itself philosophically. You do not know this, or anything about it. You do not know anything about Karl Popper or Imre Lakotos and their attempts to define what science is. You do not know anything about Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend and their deconstruction of the work of Popper and Lakotos. You know nothing whatsoever about the current state of debate in the aftermath of the work of these great men. In short, you are an ignorant little ***** who has about as much right to be calling for a reform of science as Theo Walcott has the right to be part of England's World Cup squad. i.e. none at all. Let me give you a clue, nappy boy: science is already unable to define itself philosophically. Hence, there is nothing to reform. Science has fuzzy borders already. And there is no way to draw non-fuzzy ones, apart from to declare science to be equivalent to materialism, which is presumably exactly what you don't want. There is no point in reforming science if the thing you are left with after the reformation isn't science anymore. Now read this paragraph again, twice.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about." Last edited by UndercoverElephant; 13th June 2006 at 03:46 AM.

13th June 2006, 05:31 AM	#19
alock Student Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 33	You seem to understand the idea of reform very clearly. Why don't you setup a new 'reformed science centre' and see how much funding you can obtain. I'm sure you will soon be able to prove all the close-minded people on this forum wrong.
alock Student Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 33

13th June 2006, 06:25 AM	#20
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,367	Ah, the return of the Prodigal Troll. Kittens for everyone! What say ye?

13th June 2006, 06:33 AM	#21
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	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.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about." Last edited by UndercoverElephant; 13th June 2006 at 06:36 AM.

13th June 2006, 06:37 AM	#22
Anacoluthon64 Defollyant Iconoclast Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sceptylvania Posts: 1,026	Originally Posted by lifegazer 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
	__________________ "The cynics were watchdogs terrifying malefactors. They tried to expose falseness and conceit. That's why their name is still spoken with a snarl." — Petr Skrabanek, In Defence of Destructive Criticism.

13th June 2006, 07:54 AM	#23
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Originally Posted by JustGeoff 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.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

13th June 2006, 08:05 AM	#24
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by lifegazer 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.

13th June 2006, 08:57 AM	#25
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,091	Originally Posted by lifegazer 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. Originally Posted by lifegazer ...because until 'science' formally reforms to a position obvious from this post, humanity will not progress. Please state what this "obvious" position is.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

13th June 2006, 09:00 AM	#26
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 14,287	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".
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht "Let it go and come to bed already, El Greco" - MoeFaux

13th June 2006, 09:23 AM	#27
Tirdun Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Near DC, in an underground NWO bunker Posts: 637	Originally Posted by lifegazer 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.
	__________________ The rain has a such a lovely sound to those who're six feet underground The leaves will bury every year and no one knows I'm gone -Tom Waits May You Never Thirst, Slàinte!

13th June 2006, 09:35 AM	#28
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Originally Posted by Tirdun Yeah, he has never really understood Relativity or what its foundations were. What can ya do?

13th June 2006, 10:26 AM	#29
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079	One question science can not answer is how LG can type so much without his keyboard shorting out from all the drool.
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079

13th June 2006, 10:43 AM	#30
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	You gonna answer my questions LG?

13th June 2006, 10:57 AM	#31
SuperCoolGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Near the sun Posts: 480	Originally Posted by lifegazer 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. Originally Posted by lifegazer How many big-bang theories are there? Well, there's the Big Bang Theory and . . . uh . . . Originally Posted by lifegazer 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. Originally Posted by lifegazer 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!

13th June 2006, 11:02 AM	#32
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,417	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.
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,417	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

13th June 2006, 11:13 AM	#33
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Ah, the good ol' "blox snog groggle" argument. A classic.

13th June 2006, 11:17 AM	#34
Tirdun Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Near DC, in an underground NWO bunker Posts: 637	Originally Posted by SuperCoolGuy 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.
	__________________ The rain has a such a lovely sound to those who're six feet underground The leaves will bury every year and no one knows I'm gone -Tom Waits May You Never Thirst, Slàinte!

13th June 2006, 11:17 AM	#35
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by Upchurch Ah, the good ol' "blox snog groggle" argument. A classic. He spelled it wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!