Why Science is Ridiculous

[Tom]

No, actually, I'm right,

No, actually, you're wrong. You see, when someone givers you an example of
some event you claim cannot occur, you have been shown to be wrong. That's
how we do the "logic" thing. Now, if you don;t like the logic thing, you
are free to make whatever ridiculous claims you want. But then, so am I.
Want to play it that way?

because you're acknowledging that what happens

"Because"??? "Because"??? You're not asserting some sort of rigid
cause-and-effect relationship that could be used to accurately describe and
even predict outcomes, are you? Are you claiming to be some kind of
scientist or something?

when it's listened to is something that happens internally with your
own physical self, and "Science" has no explanation for the mechanism
of how "Clair de Lune" causes you to feel joy or whatever,

It's complicated, but there is indeed an explanation. I realize it's
hopeless to recommond any books to you, since I doubt you're capable of
reading anything more challenging than Dr. Suess, but there is a book on
this subject that does exactly what you claim "Science" cannot do. It's
called "Looking For Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain", by
neurologist Antonio Damasio.

and "I'm
gonna kill yo bitch mama" causes you to feel distress, or a way to
objectively measure it, so they dismiss it.

Again you're demonstrably wrong, but you will only be convinced of it if you
do the kind of studying I suspect you would categorically refuse to do.

There's more to reality than meets the measuring instrument. ;-)

Your senses are your measuring instruments. Without them, *you* have no
reality.

 

[Tom]

Well, it wasn't the molecules who decided to put that enigmatic little
half-smile on her face, was it?

Sure it was. It was the molecules of DaVinci.

How did they plan it?

You'd have to ask DaVinci.

How did each
molecule know what the others were doing?

They didn't. They're not little men, you know. Or do you?

For that matter, how do water molecules know which site on the snowflake
to condense onto?

They don't need to know anything. Why would you think they'd need to?

How does one arm (of the snowflake) know what the others
are doing?

They don't need to know anything. Why would you think they'd need to?

 

[Nevermore]

From: John Larkin <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.religion.wicca,sci.environment,sci.geo.
geology,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Why Science is Ridiculous
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:02:44 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



Who insists on "scientific proof of everything"? Few scientists, I
expect.


If it's intangible, it ain't science.

If it's got that sly come-hither stare, it's witchcraft.

Nevermore (putting the tang in intangible)

 

[Bob Myers]

No, actually, I'm right, because you're acknowledging that what happens
when it's listened to is something that happens internally with your
own physical self, and "Science" has no explanation for the mechanism
of how "Clair de Lune" causes you to feel joy or whatever, and "I'm
gonna kill yo bitch mama" causes you to feel distress, or a way to
objectively measure it, so they dismiss it.

Who, exactly, makes up this "science" that you apparently
would have us hold in contempt, simply because it does
not have explanations for various things? Do you offer an
alternative that CAN explain everything? If not, are the
alternatives to the scientific method not equally worthy of
your contempt? Why not? Do any of them have a better
track record in answering the questions that we put to them?
Which ones?

For that matter - how is the fact that an explanation for a
given thing does not presently exist have any bearing on
the question of whether or not an explanation will ultimately
be discovered? Are you declaring certain things simply
"unexplainable?" If so - why?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

I don't disagree with anything either of you has said here. My complaint
is that when someone insists on "scientific proof" of everything, they
are dismissing out of hand exactly those intangibles that make life
distinguishable from inert matter.

Perhaps, but I think you will find that those who always
insist on "scientific proof" are generally not themselves very
well versed in science. If they were, they would know that
science does not deal in "proofs," but only in developing the
best model that fits the facts as we presently know them.
"Proof," or rather certainty that a given position is right, is
the enemy of true science, since in the face of such certainty
we no longer question. Science consists, to a very large part,
of always questioning what you believe you "know," and
therefore trying to refine that knowledge. The opposite
approach is that which we call, broadly, "religious" thinking
- certain things must simply be accepted "on faith," and are
set aside from any possibility of being questioned.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

For that matter, how do water molecules know which site on the snowflake
to condense onto? How does one arm (of the snowflake) know what the others
are doing?

From whence comes the assumption that they have
to do either in the first place?

Bob M.

 

[ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans]

ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans wrote, On 9/3/2007 1:27 PM:

They've never been able to weigh it, since all of the test
subjects balked at having it removed from their brains to
be measured.

Well then use the brains of Political KKKonservatives. They are pretty
worthless otherwise. Medical experimenttion on RepubliKKKans appars to be a
great souce of tissue resources as well.

 

[Tom]

Well then use the brains of Political KKKonservatives. They are pretty
worthless otherwise. Medical experimenttion on RepubliKKKans appars to be
a great souce of tissue resources as well.

Or maybe negroes, Gypsies, Commies, landlords, terrorists, "RepubliKKKans"
or whatever other group of people one chooses to demonize. Once we can
remove our conception of them as human beings, we can abuse them any way we
like.

Just like I reduce *you* to the category of "troll". Which means nothing
you have to say subsequently has any importance whatsoever.

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Yes.

Really? Can it distinguish between, say, love, hate, fear, joy,
grief, anger, sadness, etc?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

No, actually, you're wrong. You see, when someone givers you an example of
some event you claim cannot occur, you have been shown to be wrong.

Well, let's back this truck up right here.

Just exactly when did I "claim [some event] cannot occur"? What "event"?

Let's be sure we're both talking about the same subject here, and not
putting words into each others' mouths, OK?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Who, exactly, makes up this "science" that you apparently
would have us hold in contempt, simply because it does
not have explanations for various things?

It was made up by people, of course. People like you and me and
Einstein and Galileo and all that crowd.

Do you offer an
alternative that CAN explain everything?

Yes.

On http://www.godchannel.com

It gives detailed instructions on how to get all of the answers there are,
from internally, i.e. inside yourself, which is where the answers have
been all along, but everybody's been trained to deny it, and
everyone maintains the denial because it's too scary to look there. >:->

http://www.godchannel.com/chanclass.html

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Who insists on "scientific proof of everything"? Few scientists, I
expect.


If it's intangible, it ain't science.

Ergo, "science" will never ever have a "theory of everything", since
without the "intangibles", it's simply not a theory of _everything_.

Does an idea exist?

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Perhaps, but I think you will find that those who always
insist on "scientific proof" are generally not themselves very
well versed in science. If they were, they would know that
science does not deal in "proofs," but only in developing the
best model that fits the facts as we presently know them.
"Proof," or rather certainty that a given position is right, is
the enemy of true science, since in the face of such certainty
we no longer question. Science consists, to a very large part,
of always questioning what you believe you "know," and
therefore trying to refine that knowledge. The opposite
approach is that which we call, broadly, "religious" thinking
- certain things must simply be accepted "on faith," and are
set aside from any possibility of being questioned.

Yes, exactly. And I've been quesitoning both for some decades
now, studying the way reality really works, and have learned some
very, very interesting things, like there's a paradigm shift in
the works that's on the magnitude of discovering that the world's
not flat and that we orbit the Sun. It's about higher dimensionalities.

But everybody seems convinced that spending a few years in 3-D, doing
the same old crap as everybody else, then dying, is all that Life is
about. I'm here to find out just how inevitable that is going to turn out
to be.

I'm a mad metascientist, and my life is my la-BORE-a-tory. Unfortunately,
by the time I demonstrate that death is unnecessary, all of my friends
and most of my relatives will be dead. )-;

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Really? How much does it weigh?

Sometimes, as much as an albatross around your neck, sometimes a
millstone, sometimes the weight of the entire world on your shoulders,
at least that's what it can feel like sometimes.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans wrote, On 9/3/2007 1:27 PM:

They've never been able to weigh it, since all of the test
subjects balked at having it removed from their brains to
be measured.

It doesn't occur in the brain. It occurs in the body; the brain
merely reports it, if you're not holding it in denial.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard Henry]

Really? Can it distinguish between, say, love, hate, fear, joy,
grief, anger, sadness, etc?

For that you need PET.

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

They don't need to know anything. Why would you think they'd need to?

By what phenomenon do six snowflake arms, remote from each other in
space, make precisely the same crystal formation? How does the crystal
arm know how to form itself the same as the others?

And then the next snowflake makes six formations of its own, all different
from the first snowflake, but all the same as each other?

And so on, and etc...

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

From whence comes the assumption that they have
to do either in the first place?

Have you ever seen a snowflake? Howcome all six arms are the same as
each other?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Meltdarok]

Rich the Philosophizer wrote, On 9/4/2007 8:31 PM:

It doesn't occur in the brain. It occurs in the body; the brain
merely reports it, if you're not holding it in denial.

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

 

[Meltdarok]

Rich the Philosophizer wrote, On 9/4/2007 8:35 PM:

Have you ever seen a snowflake? Howcome all six arms are the same as
each other?

They aren't always.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/moleculescompounds/a/snowflake.htm