Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 2:23:25 GMT
Extract from the science delusion/science set free
I argue that science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened
into dogmas. The sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun.
The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled.
........
I believe that the sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them.
The scientific creed
Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.
1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather
than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in
Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.
2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human
consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big
Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.
5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other
material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a
tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your
brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumption
is that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant
within science in the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 2:42:55 GMT
Extract from the science delusion/science set free I argue that science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun. The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled. ........ I believe that the sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them. The scientific creed Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted. 1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers. 2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains. 3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared). 4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever. 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction. 6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures. 7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain. 8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death. 9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory. 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant within science in the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted. Griffy how do you feel about the ideas presented here? Do you resonate? I feel there is some truth here but to me if there was no consciousness then there would be no existence at all. Everything has to start with something even if that something was a thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 2:57:22 GMT
Extract from the science delusion/science set free I argue that science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun. The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled. ........ I believe that the sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them. The scientific creed Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted. 1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers. 2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains. 3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared). 4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever. 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction. 6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures. 7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain. 8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death. 9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory. 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant within science in the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted. Griffy how do you feel about the ideas presented here? Do you resonate? I feel there is some truth here but to me if there was no consciousness then there would be no existence at all. Everything has to start with something even if that something was a thought. Yeah i dont agree that there is no consciousness. Science has changed to some extend with epigenetics (gene activation), more fluid boundaries of the body, more emphasis on cultural evolution and of course advances in quantum physics. It is still fundamentally stuck in the mechanistic mode however. And science still ignores a lot of phenomena as 'not real'. There are limits to knowledge due to these underlying assumptions that affects the way science is done. I think things are not purposeless and by chance but there is a reason for everything. People like richard dawkins do have some pretty useful ideas (and unlike most people he admits what sort of scientist he is clearly) especially all that mind virus stuff is very useful. I do enjoy his books. Here is something I found useful in explaining the limits to knowledge. "The 1960s saw the publication of two books that took a critical view of the reigning mythos concerning scientific knowledge. The first was Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, which undermined the idea that the sciences should be understood as progressing towards truth. Kuhn, a physicist and historian with a particular interest in philosophy of science, examined the nature of both change and constancy in scientific fields and concluded that the rhetoric of an inevitable progress towards truth was in effect part of the mythology of science. Kuhn presented changes in scientific fields as shifts in what he termed a paradigm, and suggested that the appearance of progress in he sciences was a result of post-hoc re-interpretations of older theories in terms of those that replaced them." .... "In 1969, Foucault followed up The Order of Things with his only methodological work, The Archaeology of Knowledge. In it, he attempted to derive his own methods for historical analysis (and critique his own early work) while further expanding upon the concept of episteme he had introduced three years earlier. However, The Archaeology of Knowledge is not primarily concerned with epistemes as such, and he does not even mention the term until the final chapter of the original draft. Rather, Foucault is exploring what he terms discursive formations, which is to say, the patterns, relations, and networks of practices that connect any given discourse. These are governed by what he calls a historical a priori, the conditions of knowledge at any given point in time, and this can be understood as being functionally identical to Kuhn’s paradigms. For Foucault as for Kuhn, the mythological image of the sciences advancing towards truth obfuscates the way the sciences renovate their methods and thus their discourse. " From onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2015/06/foucaults-archaeology-1-paradigm-and-episteme.htmlSo basically one of the key ideas is how knowledge is limited by the condition it is formed in. There are others there too.
|
|
|
Post by Hans Schokkenbroek on Mar 10, 2020 7:23:04 GMT
Extract from the science delusion/science set free I argue that science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun. The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled. ........ I believe that the sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them. The scientific creed Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted. 1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers. 2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains. 3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared). 4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever. 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction. 6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures. 7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain. 8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death. 9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory. 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant within science in the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted. Well... 0 out of 10 for me. For all 10 points my experiences so far tell me that science works from a flawed perspective. Just yesterday a couple of tennis buddies were really listening when I told them about some of my experiences in the energetic realm and how incredibly exciting and more abundant my life has become since my awareness increased. They may at some point in their lives begin to realise that science is nothing more than an attempt to explain / model what we perceive as material reality. By definition science is wrong as it is a model and it works from a viewpoint that is inside the model itself and therefor it cannot see the entirety. Once you see that it is extremely evident and simple. Like Viktor Schauberger said; "The majority believes that everything hard to understand must be very profound. That is incorrect. What is hard to understand is immature, unclear and often false. The highest wisdom is simple. It passes through the brain directly into the heart". It is up to my buddies to change their awareness or not. Either way is fine with me. Nothing to prove, no-one to convince.
|
|
|
Post by mironlang on Mar 10, 2020 9:10:10 GMT
Nothing to prove, no-one to convince. Sounds good
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 10, 2020 15:23:37 GMT
The scientific method is beautiful, the "scientists" are not. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So many falsely claim objectivity and sincerity while actually cowering in fear and covering their asses. We have not found a hypthesis to prove consciousness, thus people believe it is proof consciousness does not exist. As stated science deals mainly in physical stuff which we are able to measure and create testable hypothesis around, it does not mean there is something wrong with actual science, but "our" blatant disregard for truth, or at the very least truthfullness.
As in so many cases we delegate thinking to someone else and follow the herd. Nevermind that the bell-cow just keeps mooing to keep up appearances. Naturally we must conceptually categorize and shear information in order to communicate in words, but it has gotten so out of hand we can barely communicate face to face and convey useful meaning. Havee you noticeed this? Not all the time, but surely you can remember at least once you were speaking to someone and speaking the same language you were barely able to actually communicate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2020 7:32:36 GMT
Proper science yeah doesn't actual try to prove anything. " A Gentle Reminder that a Hypothesis is Never Proven Correct, nor is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True Donald French, president of the Society of College Science Teachers, points out in his recent commentary on disclaimers in science textbooks that science is typically taught as a litany of terms and facts using textbooks that do not stress that the concepts presented in them are actually theories—the best current explanations supported by experimental evidence that scientists have to offer (2006). We teachers, therefore, have created a huge misconception for students and non-scientists who read and use textbooks. They have come to believe that science is absolute and not open to challenge. Worse still for the scientific community is the fact that, in common speech, theory has almost the opposite meaning from its use in the sciences." www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52402There is some limits as to what they take as evidence of course (conventional science at least). I had a good link on the scientific method a while back not sure where it went.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 7:24:08 GMT
"The materialist philosophy achieved its dominance within institutional science in the second half of
the nineteenth century, and was closely linked to the rise of atheism in Europe. Twenty-first-century
atheists, like their predecessors, take the doctrines of materialism to be established scientific facts,
not just assumptions.
When it was combined with the idea that the entire universe was like a machine running out of
steam, according to the second law of thermodynamics, materialism led to the cheerless worldview
expressed by the philosopher Bertrand Russell:
That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his
origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental
collisions of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an
individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the
inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death
of the solar system; and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried
beneath the debris of a universe in ruins."
Now more stuff from and relating to the book but in my own words. The important question is does science really know the answers. Can we say consciousness is a byproduct of the brain. Measuring brain activity has been a come thing.
The divide between the normal/paranormal is one that is constructured. He talks about how animals know a disaster will come in advance of it happening.
As well as the divide between subjective and objective. It was created to deem the subjective as unreal and only objective as measurable and real. Matter is the only reality.
In science truth is determined by the judgement of experts. They are almost godlike.
Genes and determinism the links between genes and conditions have been very weak and hard to measure.
|
|