science-an outburst.

Subject:

Comments:
: is not a religion. science is the anti-religion. : you say, "you can't predict the behavior of object 10000 from objects 1-9999." but you can, you see. and you'll USUALLY be right if you do. (only bad scientists would say any different.) and when you're wrong, that's just MORE INPUT, not a blasphemy that throws the whole system into disrepute! : science in fact EXPECTS TO BE PROVEN WRONG!! that's why it works! science starts from the point of view that most of what we know is probably very wrong, and the process of science is the process of exploiting that wrongness. only when something has been beaten again and again by hardnosed skepticism is it admitted-HESITANTLY-as a POSSIBLE truth. : nothing : is : ever : PROVEN : by : science. : (it's just that some things are harder to disprove than others.) : that's why science works. : and it DOES work. how are you reading this? : even the most "sensible" theories are constantly thrown back on the bashing table, like gravity, particular matter, newtonian physics, linear time, and so on. : and, as a good scientist, i'm willing to invest less than 100% faith that there even exists a noumenal world to speak of, and that faith that i DO invest is only because it's convenient to think in terms of a "real" world. for all i know, this is all in my head, cause all that "i" experience is sense data and thinking. : the word "proof" only applies to systems like logic and math and geometry, where we know all of the rules and all of the objects 100%. it is foolish to assume that we can use the word "proof" (in the totality sense) in any other situation. as some philosopher showed (the guy's name escapes me at the moment, and i'm already too late for work to look it up) every logical system is based on certain axioms that are not based on anything else and unproveable, and must be accepted from the outset. for example, calculus is based, at the root, on the simple axiom of the order of the numbers and the definition of addition. 1 comes before 2 comes before 3, etc. then subtraction is backwards addition, multiplication is repeated addition, and division is backwards multiplication. if we accept this, then we can "prove" things. the problem with our scientific understanding of the world is that **we don't know the axioms** or even, IF there ARE such axioms, so proof is a useless word in such a situation. : however... : we can observe data. : we can find patterns. : we can use those patterns to predict the world, : and, when our patterns are shown to be wrong, : we revise them. : seeing a glowing ball just means you saw a glowing ball. : not that science is wrong. : (the very phrase "science is wrong" is like saying "typing is wrong." it's ridiculous. don't say it unless you're willing to follow through and give up all the technology, the fruits of science, like prepared food and clothes and the knife and wheel.) : isaac : : : It is easy to lock one slf in a closed system and become hypnotised by it. The fact is that consciousnes is limited and emerges from multi-layered levels of intricate cognitive processes. This becoems so clear once one has dived into the experience of it, witnessing sudden switches of consciousnes in very specific circumstances, that's enough to make one a little more humble, cautious and in owe as one discovers the infinity of life. Sure today's research has put into evidence, no need to prove a chair is a chair, that feelings, perception and thinking processes are all linked and constantly interact at a subconscious level. Beliefs are strong enough to affect our health and body functions to a point hard to admit for most of us, for most fear taking responsability for their own lives. : : Research! Bah, humbug! Science is a RELIGION, a set of BELIEFS that have NO LOGICAL BASIS and CANNOT BE PROVEN! Science is just common sense put in a formal speech. Science is based on the idea that what happens to most things must happen to all things. Not so! Assume you have similar objects 1, 2, 3,... 10000, and objects 1-9999 have been studied by a scientist, and an engineer is trying to predict the qualities of object 10000. Now assume that objects 1-9999 do action X under certain conditions. There is no reason why object 10000 should do the same. If object 10000 does do the same, there is still no proof that object 10001 will, or even that objects 1-10000 will do action X if tested again. : : Let's say there is a natural law that object 10000 has an action Z under conditions A. Objects 1-9999 could have any action at all under conditions A without changing the action Z of object 10000. Intuitively, for some reason, we think that it would be likely that if all other objects besides 10000 perform action X then object 10000 does too, but there is no link between the objects, no fundamental reason why object 10000 should continue the pattern. My favorite real life example of this is gravity. "Hmm, if I let go of this pencil above the gound it moves downward. Hmm, if I let go if this clock above the ground it also moves downward. Hmm, if I hypothesize that if I let go of this barbell it also moves downward." Nonsense! There could be a universal law saying that barbells float, or your memory might be incorrect about the pencil and the clock! : : Now, this isn't saying science is stupid. There isn't anything WRONG with beliefs, and I find science fairly interesting. But it shouldn't be treated as fact! Science is no substitute for logical thinking. And, how do you know you have a brain anyway? Maybe brains don't exist until you look at them, and we are just carrying around 2 or 3 pound bars of lead in our skulls that do all our thinking until someone opens up our head or does a CAT scan or whatever, which is when the bars of lead suddenly turn into complex gray matter for the benefit of the brain surgeon or cancer specialist or whoever is looking at it. : : Please do NOT discard my thoughts here as ridiculous or a joke. I am dead serious, even about that last but about the brains, and I am right too. : : Oh, and P.S. - I have had MANY wierd cognitive experiences (and I never do drugs and I am reasonably sane) including bouts of euphoria for no particular reason, seeing glowing balls of light lying on the ground, and dreams about poltergeists and telekenisis. Plus, thinking hard about perception and logic and science in the rather unorthodox ways that I do and trying to change my world view to what my logic tells me it should be tends to make my head hurt.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: