Why Science is Ridiculous

[Peder B. Pels]

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

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

Bob M.

Dont be ridiculous. If that was so, religion wouldnt exist in teh form
it does today.

 

[Bob Myers]

Dont be ridiculous. If that was so, religion wouldnt exist in teh form
it does today.

Gee, you say that as if it would be a BAD thing...;-)

Bob M.

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Yes, evidence. For someone who calls himself a
"philosophizer," you seem amazingly unwilling to actually
try to tackle some of the basic questions of philosophy.
For instance, let's start with epistemology, shall we?

Sure, whatever the hell "epistemology" is.

How
is it, exactly, we know what we know?

The same that way we know that we are. We observe it.

How can we have
any degree of certainty of the correctness of a given belief,
especially given the readily-observed fact that the human
mind is very adept at what might crudely be called "fooling
itself."

You ask your ass.

In short, how do we distinguish what is "true" from
what we merely think or would like to be true?

By how it feels.

How do
we know which of our perceptions, if any, we can actually
trust, and for those cases where they cannot be trusted -
are there any procedures we can follow to compensate
for this?

Trust your ass.

There are endless questions that you really need
to think about before you can so casually dismiss the
notion that evidence and reasoning are good tools in the
search for truth.


Again, I neither deny nor accept the existence of "kundalini" or
"chakras" or any of these notions. They're very interesting concepts.
But I seriously doubt that any of these have been a part of your
personal belief system since you were born. At some point, you
decided that these things were "true" (while by necessity deciding
that certain other things were "false"). If you didn't do this based
on the evidence available to you at the time, and your own
reasoning - then how did you make these decisions?

That's what I'm trying to get across here - My conclusions _ARE_ based
on evidence I had at the time, it's just that my evidence wasn't in
brick form, to show to the measurement guy; it was experential.

You clearly make you own "denials, judgement, etc.," as well, as
is evidenced by:


Right there is the judgement, on your part, that what you propose
is a "larger" (presumably, this equates to "superior" or at least
"more complete" version of reality - and yet, why should anyone
accept that this is so?

"Presumably"? "Superior"? Now who's judging? (not to mention putting
words in other people's mouths.) ;-)


Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

No, not in your universe. In your mental model of the universe. In your
head.

Oh, no. I very clearly felt my root chakra open, and I very clearly felt
the flow of _comething_ which I'm arbitrarily calling Kundalini - it could
have been Chi, it could have been something nobody has a name for yet,
but it was very, very real.

And it wasn't in no mental model - it was physically in the center of
my very anus.
http://godchannel.com/runenergy2.html

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

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

Thanks for the verification. >:->

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

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

Actually, I think that was kinda my point here. ;-)

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Bob Myers]

Sure, whatever the hell "epistemology" is.

Again - you call yourself a "philosophizer," and you
don't even know one of the three major fields (along
with semantics and metaphysics) of classical philosophy?

Whatever the hell do YOU mean by "philosophizer" if
it doesn't mean one who is seriously interested in these
sorts of questions?

The same that way we know that we are. We observe it.

But what of those things that cannot be observed directly?
Even for those things which can be observed directly, how
do we determine which observations to trust, and which
to discard? There are many, many examples of observations
which, if taken at face value, will lead one to incorrect
conclusions. One trivial one - at first glance, the reasonable
conclusion to draw from simple observation is that the
Earth is flat.

You ask your ass.

I guess you're not really interested in seriously considering
these questions, then?

By how it feels.

But why trust "how it feels" more or less than anything
else?

Trust your ass.

Why? Just because it leads you to the answers you
like? Or do you have some other reason?

That's what I'm trying to get across here - My conclusions _ARE_ based
on evidence I had at the time, it's just that my evidence wasn't in
brick form, to show to the measurement guy; it was experential.

A lot of evidence is in "experiential" form - the question is,
which do we accept, which should we not accept, and why?
Are you taking the position that everything you perceive is
true, or that all perceptions are equally valid and valuable
for the purpose of determining "truth"?

"Presumably"? "Superior"? Now who's judging? (not to mention putting
words in other people's mouths.) ;-)

Not me; I'm asking you to explain what you mean. Your
exact words said that through the methods you were proposing,
one would "actually _observe_ a larger Reality." I can take
that literally (e.g., you somehow perceive a physically larger
space), but that doesn't seem, in this context, to be what you
intended. So I left with the assumption that you are using
"larger" to mean a reality which is "better" or at least "richer
in content" than what would otherwise be the case. If THAT'S
not what you meant, then please clarify - because so far, you
don't seem to want to be very clear in what you're trying to
claim.

And do you mean do say that the reference to a "larger
Reality" was NOT a judgement on your part? Again, I'm
just trying to understand what you're saying - please help me
out here.

Bob M.

 

[Tom]

Sure, whatever the hell "epistemology" is.

And so on.

 

[Tom]

Oh, no. I very clearly felt my root chakra open,

You very clearly felt something that you imagined was your "heart chakra
opening". You should learn the difference between an experience and an
explanation for that experience. This is the difference between the
territory and the map.

And it wasn't in no mental model - it was physically in the center of
my very anus.

Yes, it was. It's just that you have your head up your ass. (Didn't you
just *know* that was coming?)

 

[Tom]

Thanks for the verification. >:->

That you're a troll? You're welcome.

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Again - you call yourself a "philosophizer," and you
don't even know one of the three major fields (along
with semantics and metaphysics) of classical philosophy?

Whatever the hell do YOU mean by "philosophizer" if
it doesn't mean one who is seriously interested in these
sorts of questions?

It means I sit and philosophize. Do I have to draw you a picture?

I'm seriously interested in much deeper quesitons, like what's the
stuff that "epistemology" and so on are made of and how does it
relate to the reflection I see around me?

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

You very clearly felt something that you imagined was your "heart chakra
opening". You should learn the difference between an experience and an
explanation for that experience. This is the difference between the
territory and the map.


Yes, it was. It's just that you have your head up your ass. (Didn't you
just *know* that was coming?)

Of course. How could I have expected anything "less"?

Have you ever visited your own anus at a feeling level?

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[John Kepler]

Actually, I think that was kinda my point here. ;-)

And like everything else you've said to date....you'd be wrong!

 

[John Kepler]

It means I sit and philosophize. Do I have to draw you a picture?

Roman Unemployment Compensation Clerk (Bea Arthur): "Occupation?"

Cornicus (Mel Brooks): "Stand-up philosopher!"

(Bea Arthur): Ohhhh.....you mean 'bullshit artist'!

(Mel Brooks): "Yeah....well....whatever! Give me my money!

(Bea Arthur): "Not so fast! Have you bullshitted today? Have you TRIED to
bullshit this week?

From: "History of the World, Part 1"

I'm seriously interested in much deeper quesitons,

"Have you bullshitted today?"

like what's the

stuff that "epistemology" and so on are made of and how does it
relate to the reflection I see around me?

"Have you TRIED to bullshit this week?

Can Mel call'um or what!

John

 

[Tom]

Of course. How could I have expected anything "less"?

Or anything else. Low-ball claim. Low-ball response.

Have you ever visited your own anus at a feeling level?

Sure. Every day. That's why I make sure I get plenty of fiber in my diet.

Don't you?

And you still don't grasp the difference between an experience and an
explanation of that experience. Experience is real. Explanations are made
up. You had a feeling in your asshole. That was real. You explained it as
your "root chakra opening up". That was made up.

Let me present this to you in mystical form: The Tao that can be spoken is
not the eternal Tao.

 

[[email protected]]

And like everything else you've said to date....you'd be wrong!

You have proof?

Charles

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Can Mel call'um or what!

Ick. Watching a Mel Brooks movie is like watching some old circus
geek masturbate.

Feh.
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

You have proof?

He doesn't need any - he has faith. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Kepler]

Ick. Watching a Mel Brooks movie is like watching some old circus
geek masturbate.

Spent a lot of time watching some old circus geek masturbating have you?

Not to worry....all of it makes more sense than YOU do!

John

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Spent a lot of time watching some old circus geek masturbating have you?

Only once, in a really weird porno movie.

Since then I've avoided them like I avoid Mel Brooks Movies.

Why is this important to you?

Thanks,
Rich