|
|
Post by zazeniac on Mar 22, 2022 12:47:27 GMT -5
Amazing how movements take on the features of those they oppose. It's fascinating. not sure what you mean exactly but other than against gravity perhaps I think this could be called amazing unopposed movement Beautiful vid, btw. Scientism might be seen as a response to religious intrusion in the field of Science, Creationism et al. Not judging Scientism. Think it might be fun to join a Church of Scientism. Think of it. A Church in every neighborhood. Statues of Bruno and Sagan and Einstein everywhere. You could be high priest. I just want to be in charge of the sacred flora. Tax exemptions! Scientism holidays! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 5:06:24 GMT -5
Maybe some specific scient ist have taken a hit of late.. but surely Science, itself, is fine. This is what the Science Council calls their definition of science. Do you have any concerns? The above seems like a pretty classical definition, and would likely be a concern even for quantum theorists. Bingo! And this is where we enter LOA territory, i.e. scientists only being able to see (or prove) what they are able to believe. The worst case scenario would be that scientists only prove to themselves their own subjective (as an individual or as a group) belief system via the 'objective' scientific method. The best case scenario would be that scientists are aware of the observer effect in whatever they do, not just as it concerns their scientific instruments when they do experiments, but also as it concerns their own mental faculties when they start seeing patterns and draw conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 5:36:52 GMT -5
Perhaps ironically, there's a clue to scientism that can be had from that most disreputable of "sciences": psychology. "Hard" scientists, after all, dismiss psychology, and I understand why. But psychologists offer us the notion of a "blind spot". We're coming up on the century mark from the Copenhagen Interpretation. That's where you'll find the clearest demarcation between science and philosophy you'll ever encounter. The implications of the underlying discoveries weren't missed by everyone, but there are just as many offshoots from it that keep the mind spinning as there are denials. Both the offshoots and the denials are mental rabbit warrens. This is a sort of macrocosm of someone who encounters a silent mind ("internally", for themselves), but then just lets the thing spin up again, going on it's merry way. Like a brief interruption during a din of conversation in a crowded room when someone says something particularly controversial that everyone ignores out of polity, the way they might ignore a loud fart.  To truly question and consider the implications of questioning the subject/object split, is to present many people today with a chasm, a cliff, over which there is nothing but a free fall.  I can tell you from personal experience that psychologists have been working really really hard on becoming accepted as an exact (or hard) science.  Psychology has an interesting dilemma, because it has to account for both body and mind. But both of these areas are already covered expertly by other disciplines, namely philosophy and medicine (or biology). And so psychologist, at least in academia, always seemed to me uncertain of their own identity because the way psychology is defined, it always puts them into a 'between two chairs' position, which results in a 'neither fish nor flesh' situation in terms of their theories and belief systems. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 23, 2022 6:02:34 GMT -5
Objective observation is a concern, given the potential 'observer effect'.The above seems like a pretty classical definition, and would likely be a concern even for quantum theorists. Bingo! And this is where we enter LOA territory, i.e. scientists only being able to see (or prove) what they are able to believe. The worst case scenario would be that scientists only prove to themselves their own subjective (as an individual or as a group) belief system via the 'objective' scientific method. The best case scenario would be that scientists are aware of the observer effect in whatever they do, not just as it concerns their scientific instruments when they do experiments, but also as it concerns their own mental faculties when they start seeing patterns and draw conclusions. Yeah, it comes down to two main issues for me, which are actually intertwined. At least the basis of which. Firstly, that the act of perception IS the act of creation. Secondly, that the intellectual is fundamentally axiomatic. I hafta say that in my experience folks have a tendency to overshoot in their conclusions about what all that indicates, and basically end up second mountaineering. But to not allow for those facts is the opposite extreme, first mountaineering, which essentially leads to scientism. In many ways it can become as dogmatic as fundamentalist religion. Which of course, is slightly ironic. Eventually science and spiritually have to meet, and some of the current 'hard problems' of science is where that starts to happen. Idk, stuff like the Copenhagen Interpretation could perhaps even be considered as where science is starting to become more gnostic in nature. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 6:06:25 GMT -5
Maybe some specific scient ist have taken a hit of late.. but surely Science, itself, is fine. This is what the Science Council calls their definition of science. Do you have any concerns? I've read authors that point out at the dawn of science there was this bargain that was made between scientists and the oppressive Vatican: scientists were studying the body and the Earth, the creations of God and how they express God's will. The mind, the spirit and the heavens were reserved for the clerics. These authors speculate that this led to a "mind/body" duality in Western thought that isn't mirrored in Eastern thought. They put the start of this split at the aftermath of Galileo and finalize it with Descartes. Eventually, predictably and understandably, the scientists threw off this constriction, and the Church has always been their enemy. This is punctuated most succinctly by Laplace answering Napoleon: N: "And where is God in your theory?" L: "I have no need for that hypothesis" What the transhumanists are about to learn is the meaning of the old myth of Icarus. Some wisdom, is quite timeless. There will always be curious people who experiment and make discoveries that both benefit and vex mankind, regardless of this current cultural cycle. It's something that was going on long before even the invention of the notion of "science", after all, and it's quite likely that we've forgotten much of what those curious people discovered in the distant past, a trend which is likely to continue on very long time scales. I'd say our understanding of science has changed significantly over the centuries. Politics also always had an impact on science, but I think in the long run, that influence isn't really significant. What I find a lot more significant is specialization and, especially recently, compartmentalization. Just think of ancient Greece and their understanding and practice of science, like Pythagoras' esoteric numbers, or Kepler who was not just an astronomer but also an astrologer. So along the way, science has accumulated a lot of new knowledge and in terms of how this translates into modern technology, science has an impressive track record. However, specialization may have gone too far in some fields, especially where it reached the stage of compartmentalization, like let's say medicine. That's where (over)specialization actually can do more harm than good. A scientist that can still see the big picture, i.e. where his particular field of research fits in with all the other sciences as well as the place of science in general, is very rare these days, but it was the standard in ancient times. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 6:15:39 GMT -5
Objective observation is a concern, given the potential 'observer effect'. The above seems like a pretty classical definition, and would likely be a concern even for quantum theorists. Well most sciencey stuff is over my pay grade but I do enjoy some of the fruits of their labors. But hey that new James Webb telescope is a pretty cool evolution of science. We come out of the Savannah and then yada yada we're placing autonomous objects in space beyond the moon..  That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be how Seth liked to explain it, that technology is usually just imitating nature. In the context of a space telescope or scientific instruments in general, those would just be (imperfect) imitations of our inner senses. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 6:23:26 GMT -5
The point of the article is not against science itself but scientism, i.e. the improper use or role of science in recent years. Said that, I actually think entire branches of science have taken a hit due to the 'institutional factor' as mentioned in the article. There's a lot that comes along as science these days that is actually pseudoscience when you really take a closer look at it. And often it is basic logical errors or epistemological issues that expose the alleged science as pseudoscience. And what is probably the weakest link in the methodology you've posted is the peer review process. Think about it, if you've got a new theory and have tested it, but all your peers have decided that what you propose is ridiculous and not even worth a try, and they all stick together and refuse to peer review or publish your work, what will happen to your work and your new theory? Will your work be know to the public as science of pseudoscience? Will the public hear about your work at all? No matter their initial noble causes most institutions eventually become bloated by bureaucracy, and from tenure, and from a hidden embedded culture.. But if your guy at the end finds something true and useful.. the work speaks for itself. Yes, eventually, I am optimistic that truth and facts will prevail, but there's no sure way of predicting how long that will take - months, years, decades or centuries. In that context, the political aspect Laughter mentioned shouldn't be ignored. It serves some people's agendas to propagate false scientific theories. So if you are a scientist and have a new and better theory and can prove it, your worst enemies may no actually be your lazy or biased peers but something else that normally wouldn't even cross your mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 6:29:14 GMT -5
Absolutely, you just have to marvel at some of those fruits, and presume some level of objectivity too, for all that to be possible. I'm also very excited by that JW telescope, can't wait to see what it can do. I can never quite get my head around how those things can be literally looking into the distant past in 'real-time' …. so to speak.  It just reveals details about Nature (aka Creation) that we can't easily see with the naked eye. And sometimes what it reveals is just awesome. Those details could be hidden from obvious sight by being too small, too large, too distant, or requiring some deduction from observations. That's a key difference: do you look at science as a way to reveal and be in awe of Creation (good), or do you look at science like your intellect is dominating life and "knowing" everything (nope). In addition to the folly of scientism, there is also a folly of science denial, or ignorance. But that would be another thread. I agree. In ancient times science was a deeply spiritual discipline. So-called 'sacred' geometry is a good example. But we've come a long way since. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 6:32:19 GMT -5
Just musing on the JW telescope again, and it always throws up a couple of mindbenders for me. So this telescope (which is the successor to Hubble) will apparently be able to look back and witness stars being born 10 billion years ago. Basically, 'because that's how long it's taken the light from those events to travel here'. It uses a big gold array to capture light from the sun to be able to do this. So, the first doozy for me is that, it's using light from the sun to effectively be able to witness events that happened over 5 billion years before the sun even formed! The process as a whole seems to span time in a bit of a weird way, right. But it also throws up another question. If we can use a telescope to 'look back 10 billion years and watch stars forming' ….. why can't we use one to look back to yesterday at me typing cr@p on a keyboard …. (I do have an answer to that one actually). I think the JW telescope is a good example of the phenomenon that scientists are only being able to see what they are able to believe, or how believing is seeing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2022 10:54:06 GMT -5
I do feel science is near useless when it comes to our most pressing issues. For me personally, that means dealing with a kind of depression as well as resolving certain deeper questions.
However, I think science may have a value even there, in keeping us honest. I see people sometimes attacking science because they want to carve out a safe space for a comforting belief that conflicts with something from science. Probably better if one is forced to abandon the belief and look deeper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2022 11:31:27 GMT -5
Another thing... the flat-earth people have increased in numbers in recent years. It illustrates a problem with science and our society. The flat-earthers say you should only believe what you can see for yourself. That actually makes sense. The problem is you can see for yourself that the earth is round, but it requires some work, and maybe some training. As science gets more advanced, fewer people are able to follow the work and see for themselves, so scientists start to sound like high priests pushing random beliefs. A similar thing happened with some of the covid stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 23, 2022 14:23:53 GMT -5
Another thing... the flat-earth people have increased in numbers in recent years. It illustrates to a problem with science and our society. The flat-earthers say you should only believe what you can see for yourself. That actually makes sense. The problem is you can see for yourself that the earth is round, but it requires some work, and maybe some training. As science gets more advanced, fewer people are able to follow the work and see for themselves, so scientists start to sound like high priests pushing random beliefs. A similar thing happened with some of the covid stuff. Yes, … speaking about what you can see yourself insofar as the Earth is round …. I seem to remember once reading about how it was that the Earth was originally deduced to be spherical. Basically, if in a boat you go far enough out in the ocean so that no land is visible , i.e. just water as far as the eye can see- in any direction. Then panaramically the horizon (where the sky meets water) is always equidistant from where you stand on the deck of the boat. That holds for any ocean on Earth, and I think the range of vision is actually 2.9 miles. The reason given for this is that it is due to the curvature of the Earth, which seems pretty reasonable. I can't remember who it was, but way-back-when, some bright spark used that distance measurement to calculate the size of the planet. Which turned out to be remarkably accurate, when with the subsequent advent of satellites they were able to measure this quite accurately. Now, whenever I hear about flat-Earthers, I wonder how they go about accounting for this fact. That on the ocean the horizon is always equidistant. I assume they must have an alternative explanation of some sort, but can't imagine what that might be. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 23, 2022 16:17:39 GMT -5
Another thing... the flat-earth people have increased in numbers in recent years. It illustrates to a problem with science and our society. The flat-earthers say you should only believe what you can see for yourself. That actually makes sense. The problem is you can see for yourself that the earth is round, but it requires some work, and maybe some training. As science gets more advanced, fewer people are able to follow the work and see for themselves, so scientists start to sound like high priests pushing random beliefs. A similar thing happened with some of the covid stuff. Yes, … speaking about what you can see yourself insofar as the Earth is round …. I seem to remember once reading about how it was that the Earth was originally deduced to be spherical. Basically, if in a boat you go far enough out in the ocean so that no land is visible , i.e. just water as far as the eye can see- in any direction. Then panaramically the horizon (where the sky meets water) is always equidistant from where you stand on the deck of the boat. That holds for any ocean on Earth, and I think the range of vision is actually 2.9 miles. The reason given for this is that it is due to the curvature of the Earth, which seems pretty reasonable. I can't remember who it was, but way-back-when, some bright spark used that distance measurement to calculate the size of the planet. Which turned out to be remarkably accurate, when with the subsequent advent of satellites they were able to measure this quite accurately. Now, whenever I hear about flat-Earthers, I wonder how they go about accounting for this fact. That on the ocean the horizon is always equidistant. I assume they must have an alternative explanation of some sort, but can't imagine what that might be. The horizon issue is one of their favourites, it's a 'go-to'. I looked briefly for some of the old main players on youtube, but looks like a lot of it has been scrubbed. I haven't watched this, but the title caught my eye because this is kind of how I see it.... 'Wrong but not stupid' www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2ccI haven't hard a flat earth conversation in a long time, my science isn't good enough to discuss it, and I start to see their point of view, which I don't like the feeling of. The Mandela Effect is similar....it's really interesting but after a while, I don't like the way it feels. www.buzzfeed.com/morgansloss1/mandela-effects-reddit |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 20:21:54 GMT -5
It's actually less of a mindbender if you revive the "ether" concept. There are presentations I've seen about 4-D motion .. there's some term here that escapes me, something like "world vector", but the bottom line is that because which direction is time is arbitrary, you can think of everything moving at the speed of light in four dimensions, even when at rest in any given frame, and the reason for time and object/space dilation (different measurements of the same ruler from different frames), from this perspective is simply a matter of accounting. Another point worth mentioning is that photon's have no mass, and the asymptotic approach to c comes with the reciprocal asymptotic approach to infinite mass, so the idea of an observer riding a photon is actually a funny nonsense. Again, the photon's energy can be thought of in terms of this ubiquitous universal motion at c. Galileo was the first to understand and write about relativity, and the reason Einstein never won a Nobel for relativity is because he didn't cite anyone in his first paper on special relativity, despite that he used the Lorenz transformation. It's a counter-intuitive topic, but it all makes perfect sense if you put your thinking cap on for long enough.  About that, maybe consciousness also has no "mass", or the entire universe is conscious, "photons" included? I've never heard this 4D everything-moves-at-c idea, and I don't see how it could work. The vectors do not add up. If you have a link with more explanation, please share. There's a book called "The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World" that is still on my reading list. It's these kind of concepts where science and spirituality meet, which I think is the best way forward for science at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2022 20:40:54 GMT -5
not sure what you mean exactly but other than against gravity perhaps I think this could be called amazing unopposed movement Beautiful vid, btw. Scientism might be seen as a response to religious intrusion in the field of Science, Creationism et al. Not judging Scientism. Think it might be fun to join a Church of Scientism. Think of it. A Church in every neighborhood. Statues of Bruno and Sagan and Einstein everywhere. You could be high priest. I just want to be in charge of the sacred flora. Tax exemptions! Scientism holidays! Yeah, they oppose creationism and then they come up with stuff like the big bang theory. Aces! And in a sense, we've already got a church of scientism these days, it usually comes along as rule by so-called 'experts'. What is especially interesting about the church of scientism is that religious movements usually attempt to give life meaning and people a special purpose, but the religion of scientism does the exact opposite, it basically took any meaning or purpose out of life by reducing everything to random collections or formations of particles that are ruled by laws of probability. No wonder people are depressed these days and are drifting aimlessly thru life, functioning but not really alive. |
|
