Page all of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#106540 - 04/30/16 07:25 AM Science: a Flawed Paradigm
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
It is known and was a case always
in the light of Satanism and anti-theistic ideas/ology -
that science is often brought up
as straight perfect alternative for: how (intelligent)human should look at things... at the world... at life...

SO. Me... Being free from all kind of conspiracy theories here
and being free from different ideologies (as it often is the case with science criticism/tics)
I am stating
that considering science as best base
for ones worldview
is wrong, and its a big mistake.

Why, youd ask me?

Because all the scientific (eventual) "points"
so to say

are applied and placed onto our society always IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL INTERESTS OF LEGIT MAJORITY MAINSTREAM/GOVERNMENT (therefore science being explained and applied into society this way
is radically defeating the whole purpose of it all...)
Its an axiom here! A reality of whats going on...

p.s. and by the way IF so far you don't know yet
that (and why) "legit majority"
is NO good (for Satanist in particular) =
then we wont even be able to have this conversation at all

p.p.s. while of course
scientific method is the best undoubtfully ,
and science in itself in terms of its "pure" (knowledge)
is truly great per se


Edited by Naama (04/30/16 08:01 AM)
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106542 - 04/30/16 08:48 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
Its a good point Naama.

What are the motives behind scientific experimentation? How are those motives formulated? Is science the only factor in the process? I doubt it.

Before you people decide to bombard me with your predictable bullshit about making a better future for mankind, or finding 'the facts' I just like to ask something you might even ask me:

How do you know? How do you know the motive of the scientific community is more about information than it is about say, ego, money, social status...

How do you know science has your best interests? I made it clear in another post that science seems to only make people fatter, dumber, and less likely to use their own body. At least our ancestors may have had more time in the wilderness to figure out how to look before they leapt.

No doubt, a lot of what I base that judgement on comes from scientific knowledge. I like science, but I believe there is a great schism between said knowledge and its application. Something in the abyss of that schism mankind has yet to face. You could say science will force us to do so, but I even wonder about that. So far, we've done a lot of horrible things in the name of science, and still it is trusted to no greater extent than people who believe what they see on the news. Hell, its popular and acceptable to believe that science is the way to a greater understanding.

Yet many who make this claim have acquired little to no information on the subject.

We have politicians and celebrities telling us what to do in the name of science. Even the scientists you see on television and radio shows offer just as much opinionated, up in the air commentary as anyone else. Where are the hard facts? Where is the point of no return?

Hell, when do politicians give named credit to the scientists who made discoveries in which they base their political decisions?

Does science only advance? We destroy the living world every day. We kill the trees that give us air, and rake up the dirt that gives us food.

For what? How much of the technology we develop is for a great fundamental cause?

How much is for convenient creature comfort?

Who is in charge of making the hardcore derisions about what to do with technology? Is it scientists? Politicians? Celebrities?

Here I am holding the so called 'great scientific method' in scrutiny. People seem to believe in its ever rigid, unchanging power. Yet, I think the scientific method and applications are just as rudimentary as most people's knowledge of the subject itself.

So I wonder. You can ask, 'what are we going to do' and yet, I will ask, if you are going to do anything, then why? To what end? Let's see how many of us really know the end to any one of our 'great human endeavours.'
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106544 - 04/30/16 09:59 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
You know, the first fully by humans created ELEMENT was Plutonium and it's first use was in the atom bomb.
That what made the syntheses of the element possible was science.

Truly diabolical.

 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii

Here I am holding the so called 'great scientific method' in scrutiny. People seem to believe in its ever rigid, unchanging power. Yet, I think the scientific method and applications are just as rudimentary as most people's knowledge of the subject itself


I do not see how your holding the Scientific method in scrutiny, you are only talking about the application in economic and political context. And what would be the next best thing ? With what would you replace it with ?

S.

Top
#106545 - 04/30/16 11:42 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1159
Loc: San Diego, CA
This used to be one of my favorite debates, but it's like yelling at a fucking wall.

Saying the process alone invalidates it as a comparative approach to gaining knowledge would accomplish nothing, but I'll try again anyway.

I gather your speaking of this trend toward religion becoming replaced by science as the operative meme.

 Originally Posted By: Richard Dawkins
Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.


In my opinion governments that function best are those that make distinct effort to downplay the role of religion placing it secondary to the role of the government itself. The legal code is enough to keep most people in line and mindful, especially in the age of PRISM.

I'm all for it. There will always be a control meme, and if I have to be subject to one I'd prefer if it didn't tell me there ARE ferries at the bottom of my garden.
_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#106546 - 04/30/16 11:47 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Stick]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
Stick, I know your post was not related to mine - directly, and let the gentleman answer it, of course,
yet, this topic is very interesting - so lemme please say a few words on it as well:

1. diabolical?
yes indeed? Bomb is diabolical... raw power... can be used by "the strong one"... yes... its so...
At the same time - along with scientific progress/inventions its such a shame for different societies - to undergo all that governmental agenda

For example "water fluoridation",
what a shame for civilized society as USA to have it in use (by the way if you ll look/research this issue - its so easy to see how leeches ride on the backs of strong - here. which is absolutely anti-satanic, and pro-majority-governmental.
(at least some places in England made it illegal, LOL. good for them)

2. There is no actually such thing (whether in real life or even in theoretical/imaginary life
as scientific method ALONE
the method is excellent and out rules a possibility of a mistake, technically

yet it works ONLY as application (what I said before),
since all the scientific "conclusions" r being carefully adjusted to the profit/benefit of corrupted political (and other) "rulers".
Soo...
Basically the first step in this "possible" "alternative" for us, (which u VERY reasonably inquiring about)
- is just for all of us - not "buying" into all these lies,
and contrary toit: carefully considering (being aware) of these implementations...
So again, for us Satanists, LHP/ers - this usual anti-theistic practice of throwing "scientific bone" as a "perfect weapon" to fight religious ignorance
= becomes somewhat incorrect and inconsiderate.
(so I started all this topic...)
to stop, to clarify, to specify... certain things and meanings
"Devil'z is'n' t'details" (c.)


Edited by Naama (04/30/16 12:14 PM)
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106549 - 04/30/16 12:52 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: Stephen Hawking
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”


That says it all.

If a technology is created by the scientific method,
the person who is wielding the technology has to keep using the method him or her self when applying the technology.

S.

Top
#106550 - 04/30/16 01:23 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
@Naama
 Originally Posted By: NA
It is known and was a case always
in the light of Satanism and anti-theistic ideas/ology -
that science is often brought up
as straight perfect alternative for: how (intelligent)human should look at things... at the world... at life...
Yeah, well a lot of goofy things are also brought up in light of Satanism and anti-theistic ideology. A solid chunk of the types of people who are drawn to this sorta thing simply aren't playing with a full bag of marbles. All science is, in a nut-shell, is the study of how stuff works through observation and experimentation. The scientific method is, well, a method – one of many methods. It's not an alternative for anything – it's another tool in the ol' tool box.

 Originally Posted By: NA
Because all the scientific (eventual) "points"
so to say

are applied and placed onto our society always IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL INTERESTS OF LEGIT MAJORITY MAINSTREAM/GOVERNMENT (therefore science being explained and applied into society this way
is radically defeating the whole purpose of it all...)
Its an axiom here! A reality of whats going on...
I'm actually having a real hard time following what it is you are trying to say here, but if I'm smelling what you're stepping in correctly, I can only say: blame capitalism, not science. Many a scientist is just as displeased with this state of affairs as you are. Even so, particle accelerators are not cheap, and plutonium mines don't just grow on trees, ya know. The capital required to fund research comes either from the state or private investors who are damn sure going to want some sort of ROI. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

@CN Just 5 question marks shy of a game of 20 questions, and not a single point to be found. 'Reminds me an awful lot of that dude who came around peddling Interrojizm for a stint. You two should hook-up, I predict a bromance made in heaven.

 Originally Posted By: CN
What are the motives behind scientific experimentation?
Curiosity, usually. Sometimes boredom. Sometimes just plain ol' wanting to break stuff to see how it works.

 Originally Posted By: CN
How are those motives formulated?
No one's really sure yet, but I'll bet my left nut that if anyone figures it out, it'll be scientists – probably those specializing in the field of physiological psychology, neurobiology, and or endocrinology.

 Originally Posted By: CN
Is science the only factor in the process?
I doubt it too, but seldom is there ever only one factor to consider regarding anything that warrants questioning.

 Originally Posted By: CN
Before you people decide to bombard me with your predictable bullshit about making a better future for mankind, or finding 'the facts' I just like to ask something you might even ask me
Damn! I thought you were making a point – turns out you were just leading into another question. Anyway, don't look at me. I tend to go with “for fun and profit”.

 Originally Posted By: CN
How do you know? How do you know the motive of the scientific community is more about information than it is about say, ego, money, social status...
You speak of the scientific community as if it's some sort of exclusive institution with a rigorous application process and membership dues – it's just a figure of speech, like “Satanic community” and in doing so you're painting with way-the-fuck too broad of a brush. I'm certain the motives vary widely from scientist to scientist, but to answer your question, I neither know, nor care what their motives are. I only care about the results. If being motivated by profit, ego, or social status drives results, fine.

 Originally Posted By: CN
How do you know science has your best interests?
I don't even assume that. It's science, man – an abstraction. It's not my mom or anything weirdO

 Originally Posted By: CN
I made it clear in another post that science seems to only make people fatter, dumber, and less likely to use their own body.
You didn't make it clear so much as you did piss and moan about it like science turned you down for prom or something.

^this guy may be your ancestor

Even so, science doesn't make people become more anything – at best it just facilitates their inclinations, helping them to do it faster – whatever “it” is, for better or worse.

 Originally Posted By: CN
At least our ancestors may have had more time in the wilderness to figure out how to look before they leapt.
and guess where they leaped. Here. They leaped here, dude. No one's stopping you from Walden Pond'ing it.

 Originally Posted By: CN

No doubt, a lot of what I base that judgement on comes from scientific knowledge. I like science, but I believe there is a great schism between said knowledge and its application. Something in the abyss of that schism mankind has yet to face. You could say science will force us to do so, but I even wonder about that. So far, we've done a lot of horrible things in the name of science, and still it is trusted to no greater extent than people who believe what they see on the news. Hell, its popular and acceptable to believe that science is the way to a greater understanding.

Yet many who make this claim have acquired little to no information on the subject.

Yeah, and you offer even less.

So far, all you've managed to say is “Science does bad stuff, so we should live in caves”. Moreover, it's still fucking weird that you even hold to a measure of “horrible things” when you also claim that the only certainty is death. You've never managed to reconcile this, either.

 Originally Posted By: CN
We have politicians and celebrities telling us what to do in the name of science. Even the scientists you see on television and radio shows offer just as much opinionated, up in the air commentary as anyone else. Where are the hard facts? Where is the point of no return?
The hard facts: if they were up your ass you'd know. You're not doing anything different than these politicians and celebrities are.

 Originally Posted By: CN
Hell, when do politicians give named credit to the scientists who made discoveries in which they base their political decisions?
I'm sure it happens about as frequently as scientists give credit to the politicians that managed to get their funding approved.

 Originally Posted By: CN
Does science only advance? We destroy the living world every day. We kill the trees that give us air, and rake up the dirt that gives us food.
Fast fact: living things die. If we don't kill it, something else will.

 Originally Posted By: CN
For what? How much of the technology we develop is for a great fundamental cause?
Only the most fundamental of causes there are: “fun and profit”

 Originally Posted By: CN
Who is in charge of making the hardcore derisions about what to do with technology? Is it scientists? Politicians? Celebrities?
Whoever is using it.

 Originally Posted By: CN
Here I am holding the so called 'great scientific method' in scrutiny. People seem to believe in its ever rigid, unchanging power. Yet, I think the scientific method and applications are just as rudimentary as most people's knowledge of the subject itself.
The way I see it, you're still just shaking your fist at clouds, man. You've offered nothing by way of an alternative that doesn't involve wiping my ass with leaves – we've been down that road – it lead us here. You want to turn tail and run backwards on account of a bunch of stupid questions that you yourself have not offered any answers to – I say go for it! Go move to the Amazon, but count me out. Lets hope for your sake, all your questions will be enough to stop the bulldozers. \:D

 Originally Posted By: CN
So I wonder. You can ask, 'what are we going to do' and yet, I will ask, if you are going to do anything, then why? To what end? Let's see how many of us really know the end to any one of our 'great human endeavours.'


I repeat: “Why do dogs lick their nuts?”
“because they can”.


Edited by antikarmatomic (04/30/16 01:33 PM)
Edit Reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=091f2twCAvc
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106552 - 04/30/16 01:56 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Stick]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
 Quote:
Stephen Hawking

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”


This quote is nice, but not easy

I'd metaphorically compare this quote
to a nice nut
with its buttery insides
that has to be cracked yet... breaking it's shell...

I'd really love to hear a STORY EXPLAINing and elaborating what Stephen Hawkings meant by that...

( by the way - me-be-ing always in search for eye-opening quote
where there is a sudden revelation plus a quote itself contributing to a long-time gnosis...)

Stick, I think I have to write now further a little post
about example with "water fluoridation issue",

And its Hell of an example, by the way, showing, how government
ruthlessly using "science" to promote its stable RHP agenda
(all governments are specializing in that ...)...

so you'll see how the "scientific method

does not go any further in our society,
then, a walls of a lab (where, a scientific discovery was established and written down by pale curly nerd with dirty nails in glasses and oversized stripped tank hoodie...)



Edited by Naama (04/30/16 02:06 PM)
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106553 - 04/30/16 02:41 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: Naama

I'd really love to hear a STORY EXPLAINing and elaborating what Stephen Hawkings meant by that...


Well, I do not know exactly what Hawkins his intend of transfer was, but I can tell you mine, how I interpret it especially in the context of your post:

It sometime is better to know your own ignorance and not be acting, then knowing a little, thinking you understand, and acting without seeing the whole of implications.

Better even is to withhold action and dig deep into the matter inquire from more sources and acting strong when having the big picture.
Sometimes it is needed to open the blackbox and understand how it works, sometimes it is not enough to only see it's effects.

S.

Top
#106555 - 04/30/16 06:38 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1796
Loc: Poland
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
How do you know science has your best interests?


There is this saying: You will know them by their fruit. We live longer than people in the past and our lives are of better quality. The development of medicine, the improvement of hygiene, the opportunities technology offers etc, all these things make our lives better. I'm far from glorifying science and turning it into a new religion. Scientists are humans too and all humans are fallible. We all want money and social status and, let's not kid ourselves, we need to sustain ourselves and our families. The same goes for scientists. Scientists can make mistakes too and they also have their political and religious views. There are also many things that science has not yet discovered. There are things we still don't know and illnesses we can't cure but we have made a huge progress.

 Quote:
I made it clear in another post that science seems to only make people fatter, dumber, and less likely to use their own body.


I'm not sure what science has to do with obesity, people's stupidity or their unwillingness to exercise. Do you want to convince me that you go everywhere on foot and never use any means of transport? Do you think that people in the past knew more or were generally more intelligent? Most of the knowledge we have today comes from science.

 Quote:
So far, we've done a lot of horrible things in the name of science


So what? Science is just a tool, like a knife. You can use the knife to slice the meat with or cut the carrots or you can use it to stab someone or slit his throat. If you choose the latter, will it be the knife's fault? The same goes for science. It can be used for the benefit of mankind or for some nefarious purpose. If one day we nuke the shit out of each other, will it be the fault of science?

 Quote:
Yet many who make this claim have acquired little to no information on the subject.


So what? Science is practical. I don't have to be an expert to use the products of technology. I regularly use the appliances in my kitchen without wrapping my head around how they were produced. When I flush my toilet, I don't keep wondering what happens to my pee and poop later on. Where I live, there is a sewage treatment plant nearby and it doesn't always smell well but if everyone in my neighborhood started throwing their waste out into the streets, like our ancestors used to do, then it would be much much worse.

 Quote:
We destroy the living world every day. We kill the trees that give us air, and rake up the dirt that gives us food.


Nature kills more organisms than us humans. Nature kills regularly. All of the dinosaurs were wiped out in the blink of an eye. Regularly, in the news I hear about some baby bear or other wild animal abandoned by the mother in the wilderness and left to die or sick animals - all rescued by humans. If left without help, they would die. Nature doesn't care.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#106557 - 05/01/16 01:26 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Czereda]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
There are also many things that science has not yet discovered. There are things we still don't know and illnesses we can't cure but we have made a huge progress.


You waste your energy on useless cognition, Czereda.

Tell me what progress means, and to what end it serves, and I'll get back to you on this matter, saying I find your nonsense worth my while.


 Originally Posted By: Czereda
I'm not sure what science has to do with obesity, people's stupidity or their unwillingness to exercise. Do you want to convince me that you go everywhere on foot and never use any means of transport? Do you think that people in the past knew more or were generally more intelligent? Most of the knowledge we have today comes from science.


And their science and our science are different. Theirs had to do with testing their own backbone and flesh in tandem with the living world. Our society tests itself against cubicles and time cards.

If you can't figure out what fat stupid people can't figure out, then what does that make of you?

If science is to blame, then surly mankind is the problem?

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
but if everyone in my neighborhood started throwing their waste out into the streets, like our ancestors used to do, then it would be much much worse.


At least the ground will bio-decay your waste. The streets will keep it there for weeks.

Are you simply presenting yourself as a post for me to sharpen my claws upon? Playing adversary?

Would it be worse Czereda, or have we simply found a way to hide greater mass quantities of shit? How much do we know of our ancestors to test ourselves against?

At least they found ways to survive in the living world... ways most people today have little to no ability to comprehend. True agility is a rare thing in our most precious technologically advanced society...

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
Nature kills more organisms than us humans. Nature kills regularly. All of the dinosaurs were wiped out in the blink of an eye. Regularly, in the news I hear about some baby bear or other wild animal abandoned by the mother in the wilderness and left to die or sick animals - all rescued by humans. If left without help, they would die. Nature doesn't care.


I wonder if nature, being what it is, kills more than we humans. You and I have a different understanding of nature.

So is it the ways in which humans kill, that other life forms do not?

One thing you obviously have yet to learn is this:

Nature cares.

I guarantee it.

What part of nature do you take as being different, or separate from us human beings?

Perhaps SIN was right. Perhaps the void is never empty, but always full. Unseen things in the abyss, crawling in the dark, even if we refuse to look upon them.

Nature is The Devil.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106558 - 05/01/16 02:18 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
Apart from the usual fucked-up manner of writing and making half-assed arguments... "flawed", in your case, should probably be translated to "trainwreck".

 Originally Posted By: Naama
that science is often brought up
as straight perfect alternative for: how (intelligent)human should look at things... at the world... at life...

Brought up by unintelligent human beings who look to science as an alternative for religion. In reality it merely envelops an objective method to analyze and gather data.

 Originally Posted By: Naama
Because all the scientific (eventual) "points"
so to say

Data and information is neutral. The interpretation and "modification" might be a lot more biased.

Political researchers may gather data and state Bernie Sanders will win the presidential race... while reality will play the "Trump"-card.

Something having to do with biased analyzation...

Another example:
One study reveals vaccination causes autism. Media roars and jumps with headlines. People stop vaccinating themselves and their children leading towards a massive decline of the human populace... Somehow the thousands of other studies which indicate or disprove that one study were neglected, forgotten or put aside.

The common red line in both cases would be good old human stupidity and favouring the "fun"-side over the more boring truthful side.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106559 - 05/01/16 03:42 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
What are we debating here ?
Science as a method?
Technology ?
The appliance of technology by politics ?

Sure Science and Technology are interconnected but I do not understand why scientific method as a tool to knowledge could even be in question.

What would there be left ? Or what method should give a "better" outcome, and were would it be based on ?

S.

Top
#106570 - 05/01/16 01:57 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Stick]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
 Quote:
You will know them by their fruit. We live longer than people in the past and our lives are of better quality. The development of medicine, the improvement of hygiene, the opportunities technology offers etc, all these things make our lives better.

Cancer is growing, allergies and auto-immune deceases. Things are not improving these days overall...
Anna, I politely assume
that you will not proceed and progress (in your writing and intellectual persuasions) with this "happy-go-lucky" attitude.
A good "writer" first notices a tragedy and the worst. It takes this "black" "keen" eye to see the utmost darkness...
Than, - comes the allevation of it which is your (will be) job to do.

 Quote:
Apart from the usual fucked-up manner of writing

CaptainObvious, please, do not criticize what you cannot change.
Im simply aiming for search of the truth and reality... that's alll

 Quote:
In reality it merely envelops an objective method to analyze and gather data.


that I know
 Quote:
The interpretation and "modification" might be a lot more biased.[/quotq]
yes, that what I'm kinda sorta hinting at.


[quote]One study reveals vaccination causes autism

most kids are strong enough not to get autism after vaccine(or anything at all)

yet only a Nazi society would make it impossible for individual to refuse injecting anything in its body...


Edited by Naama (05/01/16 02:03 PM)
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106571 - 05/01/16 02:21 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1159
Loc: San Diego, CA
 Quote:
Cancer is growing, allergies and auto-immune deceases. Things are not improving these days overall...


I guarantee you it's dietary (feast or famine), as countless scientific studies have shown.

Then I saw this.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

One study reveals vaccination causes autism. Media roars and jumps with headlines. People stop vaccinating themselves and their children leading towards a massive decline of the human populace..

The common red line in both cases would be good old human stupidity and favouring the "fun"-side over the more boring truthful side.


 Originally Posted By: Namma
most kids are strong enough not to get autism after vaccine(or anything at all)


This must be preserved.
_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#106572 - 05/01/16 02:31 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
...

I had a friend (extremely intelligent man) - a scientific worker... He told me that inside "science" community a "biggest prostitution" is going on:
science workers and their bosses would do only certain researches and PURSUE only certain specific things,
based on profit which comes from grant$ given


2. Now about water fluoridation...
Some places, like certain cities and town (England in particular - banned this poison to be added to drinking water, since it destroys inner organs like stomach and liver, if added).
Now, a logical question - why then they add it to water at all, (if it destroys inner organs)
The answer is: when it binds to teeth - it can create a certain protection for enamel.
Politicians who advocate water fluoridation explain, that poor people do not even usually care to go to the dentist and often do not take care of their teeth - so adding poison fluoride to drinking water is the only way as this element binds to enamel before it goes down the stomach and further inside the body.
SO non-poor (non-ghetto) people (although using toothpaste WITH THE FLUORIDE which is enough to protect the teeth)also have to fall victims to this practice...
typical RHP mentality decision
how a "normal" part of population has be somewhat sacrificed as careless are staying careless...

50 reasons to oppose water fluoridation:
http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html


Edited by Naama (05/01/16 02:32 PM)
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106575 - 05/01/16 03:18 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: Naama
...

2. Now about water fluoridation...
Some places, like certain cities and town (England in particular - banned this poison to be added to drinking water, since it destroys inner organs like stomach and liver, if added).
Now, a logical question - why then they add it to water at all, (if it destroys inner organs)
The answer is: when it binds to teeth - it can create a certain protection for enamel.
Politicians who advocate water fluoridation explain, that poor people do not even usually care to go to the dentist and often do not take care of their teeth - so adding poison fluoride to drinking water is the only way as this element binds to enamel before it goes down the stomach and further inside the body.
SO non-poor (non-ghetto) people (although using toothpaste WITH THE FLUORIDE which is enough to protect the teeth)also have to fall victims to this practice...
typical RHP mentality decision
how a "normal" part of population has be somewhat sacrificed as careless are staying careless...

50 reasons to oppose water fluoridation:
http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html


In my view toothpaste is a better way to apply fluoride then drinking water, I give you that.

But Fluoride destroying inner organs ? that sounds like conspiracy speak to me from Alex Jones.

You have a good point being doubtful about water fluoridation, but for the wrong reasons.

Be aware that fluoride compounds are natural occurring in many drinking water sources and not rarely in higher amounts then the safety amounts that are added to drinking water.
If the amounts are higher then the safety limit, it is even removed to meet that safety limit.
So you see it is a double edged sword in a fluoridation controlled area like the US.

Here in the Netherlands there is no fluoride added to the water supply but also not removed. That makes it possible that the water I am drinking contains more fluoride then your fluoride added water.

Fluoride is a element naturally occurring in many forms mainly salts, all over the world in varying amounts. Toxicity is is all about the dose.

 Originally Posted By: Naama
I had a friend (extremely intelligent man) - a scientific worker... He told me that inside "science" community a "biggest prostitution" is going on:
science workers and their bosses would do only certain researches and PURSUE only certain specific things,
based on profit which comes from grant$ given


That what you state above is an anecdotal example of a friend.
Although I see you as trust worthy and have no clear reason to think your friend is laying or what so ever.
The weight of anecdotal evidence is low.

S.


Edited by Stick (05/01/16 03:40 PM)

Top
#106576 - 05/01/16 03:32 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
General reply:

When I question the scientific method, I question who does the research, how its done, what information is kept, cut out, moulded, re-shaped to look like something else, who funds it, who gets hired, how those people and their influence change the information, who is going to publish the information, who is going to do more editing...

I wonder what the original data looks like before it is published into text books.

@Czereda: What I forgot to add in my last post, is that progress and the 'quality of life' is subjective. What are you talking about when you say our quality of life is better?

I don't know about that. People are dying of heart disease every day, people are pissed off, stressed out, upset, they can't seem to find peace of mind.

I can't know for sure about our ancestors, but they likely had less population/congestions issues to deal with, less cancer, poisoning, more access to fresh water and food. But my example is going further back before the industrial revolution started.

Say we were talking about the 1800s London, where people did throw their shit in the streets, yes, you are right in that respect, we do have it better.

My experience in the woods has taught me two things: I like quick access to home cooked food, and my hot showers.

Quality of life can depend on many avenues. I suppose we just need to narrow it down to more specifics.

@AK

Glad to see you still read my every word, relentlessly scrutinizing every statement. Makes me feel special \:\)

But I wonder, how much more do you offer besides your commentary? If you are going to ask me for answers, why not set the standard higher, and do it yourself?

Regardless, I know somewhere in your criticism you have good points AK. So to answer your question, here is what I think:

Transportation: I like what Europe has done with their train system. More public transportation, less cars on the road.

There really is enough food to go around the planet. The idea that we don't have enough food is false. We currently have enough food to feed the entire planet of humans.

Problem is, these food sources are being threatened. Not by GW mind you, but over fishing, ground poisoning, clear cutting.

We have got to stop the people who are clear cutting the jungles. You want atmospheric disaster? Keep cutting down the things that give us air.

This along with drilling, fracking, dumping chemicals into rivers... there are giant holes in the earth that we mine constantly. I don't think we've come a long way from poking around in the dirt. You can thank the dirt for your technology.

You've got me wrong AK. I don't think we should go live in caves, in fact, all I ever said was that they are wonderful places. I doubt we are going to be able to go back to anything. Mankind put aside, nature changes every day. There really is no 'going back.'

The closest thing I could comprehend at the moment, is to leave the damn oceans alone to replenish their stock. Again, I don't think any environment is ever going to return to some great eden. It never was. But we could let the fish reproduce for a couple of decades.

Ultimately, we might need to start cutting creature comforts, and start growing/cooking our own food. It amazes me how many people can't even cook spaghetti, or make toast without burning it.

There is a mass stupidity problem, and I think a lot of it is stress related. This is also a great issue, people have become so stressed out its hard for most people to calm down and think. I believe a lot of our social issues are a result of environmental/quality of living situations. I've been to a few cities in my life, and I think I would only ever live in one or two. Maybe

I'll add more later. I don't have the answers all mapped out to perfection AK, but there's something for you to chew on for a little while.

Conclusion: Even if we don't know, we need to hit these issues with heavy force. It is going to take even more power, resources, and new technology, and nothing is without consequence, but the world is a shit hole right now.
We need to start doing whatever we possibly can. Moreover, I think a lot of the issues like global warming, are almost acting as a kind of decoy to steer people's attention from the real problems, which would be the root cause, say GW was true. In other words, hit the cause and not the symptom, and that's a whole new book of crazy sauce.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106578 - 05/01/16 04:14 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
Like 10 years ago I was travelling in Asia, were there are area's which could be looked at as an way back machine...
No Electricity, gas, modern tools or machine soil cultivation.

They were cooking on wood.
The really small villages were fine but once they exceed let's say 200 persons you get quickly smog problems. I am telling you I live now in a medium sized city and the air is cleaner here then in those communities using wood as a heat source.

If "we" want to keep a decent piece of "untouched nature" Sea and Jungle life, I think the only option is to fully synthesized protein sources.
Lab grown meat. They are advancing right now with DNA recombination.

S.




Edited by Stick (05/01/16 04:22 PM)

Top
#106582 - 05/01/16 05:32 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1796
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
What I forgot to add in my last post, is that progress and the 'quality of life' is subjective. What are you talking about when you say our quality of life is better?

I don't know about that. People are dying of heart disease every day, people are pissed off, stressed out, upset, they can't seem to find peace of mind.


I think it's quite obvious. The mortality rate declined, we are generally healthier, have better hygiene standards and are richer. Yeah people still die and there are various illnesses but I doubt we will ever be immortal. In the past, people died en masse from diseases that are curable today or prevented with vaccinations.

You talk about obesity and stress as if they were something new. Do you think that in the past people were really less stressed? I doubt it. As for obesity, it was not so uncommon in the ancient times. Of course, the plebs could suffer from malnutrition but among the higher social classes there were enough of obese people.

 Quote:
At least the ground will bio-decay your waste.


So once I went for a holiday with friends and we stopped near the forest, the outskirts of which served as the toilet for all the tourists going in the direction we were going. Damn, it was a minefield. One had to constantly watch one's every step. Somehow the forest had difficulties with processing all the poop deposited there. More humans - more shit, more waste, more pollution. Do you suggest we commit mass suicide to save the environment or what?

 Quote:
At least they found ways to survive in the living world...


The world changes. The key word is adaptation. To survive you have to adapt to the present conditions you live in. You don't go hunting today in the woods. You work, buy your food and find your place in the society. The difference between us is that you view human civilization as something unnatural. I see it as the part of our evolution, as a natural order of things. One can bitch about it all day long but I only wonder to what purpose. But hey, I once read an article where one dude argued it would be more comfortable for us to walk on all fours and that it all went wrong.

 Quote:
Nature cares.


It doesn't care in the sense that it kills organisms regularly: plants, animals, humans too. Nature isn't sentimental.

Me thinks you have a problem with accepting the world for what it is. By all means, keep dreaming about your utopia.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#106586 - 05/01/16 06:37 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Quote:
Glad to see you still read my every word, relentlessly scrutinizing every statement. Makes me feel special
That's what's all about for me: helping people with self-esteem problems.

 Quote:
But I wonder, how much more do you offer besides your commentary? If you are going to ask me for answers, why not set the standard higher, and do it yourself?
I did.

 Quote:
Transportation: I like what Europe has done with their train system. More public transportation, less cars on the road.
'Still requires science. Even so, the forces that set into motion this current state-of-affairs regarding public transportation in the US were largely economic – see http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/streetcars.htm

 Quote:
There really is enough food to go around the planet. The idea that we don't have enough food is false. We currently have enough food to feed the entire planet of humans.
I never said we didn't. Maybe we do, maybe we don't – I don't know. But if we do, it is due to scientific advances in agricultural and irrigation. That the food is not reaching everyone's mouth is, once again, a matter for which economic principles are largely at fault.

With regards to other points made (*cough cough * backpeddling) in conjunction with Naama's anecdote:
 Quote:
had a friend (extremely intelligent man) - a scientific worker... He told me that inside "science" community a "biggest prostitution" is going on:
science workers and their bosses would do only certain researches and PURSUE only certain specific things,
based on profit which comes from grant$ given


The problems you are referring to aren't problems created by science or the scientific method, but rather the manner in which research is incentivized. Systemic issues of policy and economics.

In other words, you're both barking up the wrong tree.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106589 - 05/01/16 08:41 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: antikarmatomic]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
The difference between us is that you view human civilization as something unnatural.


I don't believe in unnatural Czereda, for me it does not exist.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
Somehow the forest had difficulties with processing all the poop deposited there. More humans - more shit, more waste, more pollution. Do you suggest we commit mass suicide to save the environment or what?


It would seem, we are well on our way to mass suicide if we keep the insanity levels up long enough.

Mass amounts of poop, yes that can cause problems to. The bacteria/soil level rates may be thrown off. I don't know soil science very well, but ph levels might be way off kilter in your scenario.

Still, the streets aren't much better. I'm not entirely against suage systems. I think those have done well to keep away sickness just as well as antibiotics.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
The mortality rate declined, we are generally healthier, have better hygiene standards and are richer.


Going back to the mass fatassery... I don't know if in Europe its the same as the US. Certainly Latin American countries do not have that problem. I don't know if you've ever visited the states Czereda, but fatassery is everywhere, and people die of heart attacks like crazy. People here are very fat.

Now, if you think most people in the world live better lives, I will say it again: It depends where you go. The west, compared to the east, has it better, living wise. But I've met people who don't have a lot in other areas, who are happy, partly because they don't live in high strung environments around crazy people.

Also, there are a huge number of suffering people everywhere the world over. I wouldn't say its a minority either. A lot of people suffer the effects of poverty, which is insane to think about if you've ever seen it first hand. I don't know how people can keep living in some of these circumstances. Its not all misfortune and environmental depletion, but more along the lines of flat out human cruelty.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
Me thinks you have a problem with accepting the world for what it is. By all means, keep dreaming about your utopia.


Ok. So, you either do not read my entire posts, or you are forgetting what I say, or perhaps I have to be blunt.

I am not a hippy, environmentalist, conversationalist, or a stewardship believer. *I also do not believe in the 'elite run the show' patriarchal way of thinking. I know people have the capacity for intelligence, however, people react to particular things the way they are taught to. This is a whole other matter.

Allow me to make this much clear:

Hippys like weed, and think because they feel good and high that they are all knowing. This encompasses the environment. Most of their views are of highly limited information. Everything concerning the environment in the hippy world view always circulates back to weed.

Environmentalists are usually out to see how they can control/manipulate the living world. Since it is a non linear chaotic system, it is unpredictable, and any change we make is only ever temporary. Our medellings in trying to 'change' the environment always comes out uglier than intended. Look up what happened with yellow stone park, or any instance where things were killed off, predators introduced, killed off again. People make quick decisions, based on politics, not science, and yes Czereda, bad things happen. I blame environmental organizations for destroying more of the world.

Conservationist are a little strange to. I believe in leaving nature alone as much as possible, but what is 'as much as possible' depends on a lot of actions and outcomes, and I can not say for sure that it is possible. Certainly we do not need to cut down the jungles and allow poisoning of the oceans as much as we do. As far as I know, these conservationists are the 'Eden believers.' This seems to be your interpretation of me, even though I've made it clear I understand how difficult the wilderness is. I don't know if you are ignoring my points or simply forgetting what I say. That aside, these people believe nature was always an Eden paradise, perfected by nature, until evil mankind came in and used his greedy 'unnatural' technology to rape our ever life giving mother. Life giving, sure, mother... I don't really care about that analogy. The first part is nonsense of course. Anyone, including me, who have suffered the consequences of going off the beaten path, know that the living world is very cruel and unforgiving. Perhaps this is what you mean when you say nature doesn't care. But nature cares, that's why it fights to live. The second part, claiming that we've raped poor mother Earth, well, its not too far from the truth, but I admit it is somewhat dramatized for effect.

This leads to a common 'stewardship' world view. The idea is, since we have this capacity to create technology and manipulate things in ways that can make instantaneous change to the world, for better or ill, that we have an obligated duty to care for and play steward to all life on earth, treating all things with equal respect to their place in the world, and caring for them all without discrimination

I find this one very hard to believe, since it mostly implies that we have the so called 'power' to play steward to something we cannot control, something we don't even understand very well, and that is, nature itself.

I should make it clear. Nature is the behaviour and drive of any given thing. Stars burn, planets spin, life feeds on life etc. I see nature in a more holistic/universal standing, if you like.

Stewardship applies that all mankind's concerns are secondary to our part in playing care giver to the poor ailing planet. It neither implies a greater understanding of the environment, nor why mankind, being as destructive as we are, are even fit to do so. It's plain dumb hypocrisy.

My point again: We have got to stop cutting down the forests. We have got to get a threshold on the diggin, drilling, and ground intoxication. Things need to be done about our garbage. There is far too much plastic in the world.

*Cleaning up our mess isn't really playing care giver, so much as it is being responsible to what we do, and leaving nature alone. This is where I differ, and have conflict in my own thoughts. I don't believe in being a steward, but then again, we do have to keep things from infecting the earth.

I suppose the only difference, is that stewards believe in being able to care for the planet off the shot, when there is still a lot of detail we need to pay attention to as we go along our business.

Any technology we make for any cause is going to have counter effects and take up more resources. I think scrutiny of scientific endeavour and collected data is in order. More scientists, and less politicians making decisions. This is another huge issue, I am only scraping the ice burg here, but there it is.

I could go on and on. This is a huge issue with a lot to consider.

 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
In other words, you're both barking up the wrong tree.


Good point, and one I should have been more clear about. Perhaps the belief in economy and politics has met its stopping point. Is money really more important than the living earth? Sure, rich people think so, and I guess the poor think that doing what the rich say is the best for them.

So the question remains, what is going to help people learn, and more importantly, take action? That's a top that doesn't stop spinning.

 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
That the food is not reaching everyone's mouth is, once again, a matter for which economic principles are largely at fault.


I agree.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/01/16 08:56 PM)
Edit Reason: *edits
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106596 - 05/02/16 04:54 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1796
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
My point again: We have got to stop cutting down the forests. We have got to get a threshold on the diggin, drilling, and ground intoxication. Things need to be done about our garbage. There is far too much plastic in the world.


I'm not sure how it is in the US but here in Europe most of the forests are protected not only by the national law but also by the EU treatises. Cutting down trees in the forests is strictly regulated and the national parks are especially protected. Even cutting down single trees requires permission. When our local authorities decided to cut down a few old trees growing by the road because they posed danger to the traffic, they had to plant new trees in the place of old ones.

There are also some restrictions on fishing, attempts to limit emission of CO2 and segregation of rubbish. How effective those measures are on the global scale is disputable. Deforestation mainly takes place in poor and developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. There, the protection of environment is of secondary or no importance at all.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#106598 - 05/02/16 09:26 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Czereda]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
I'm not sure how it is in the US but here in Europe most of the forests are protected not only by the national law but also by the EU treatises.


I've been in discussions like this in my travels with other people from Europe, Australia, and other places around the world. People seem to think there are a great number of differences between their countries and everywhere else, yet I doubt this greatly. In fact, the more I get to know about the world, the more I realize people and other countries adopt the same system, the same social conflicts, with varying degrees of misery and wealth. Most of these differences to my knowledge, are between the East and West. I think most western countries have the same cultural practices and beliefs.

For example, a lot of Europeans believe that America lets you express yourself more, but USCz feel the same way about Europe (nude beaches much?). Just an observation on my part. *These beliefs in false differences come from younger people, or any age who lack experience in study, travel, or insightful communication with people from different countries. My own knowledge is based on experience and long talks with people from the world over.

*With the 'globalization effect,' everybody is seeking a so called 'harmonized' culture. You have to ask people about their cultures and really dig into the history of each one to know the right questions to ask, or you can always cheat and throw in the word 'traditional' with your Q. Still, people won't always reveal their old fashioned traditional practices because they are afraid of being 'unappealing' to the greater world values. Whatever the hell those are.

*Certainly this doesn't apply to everyone. I've known people who love their traditions and culture, and do not want to leave the beautiful countrysides from whence they came. My own piece of the globe is quite fresh, lush and full of trees. Fresh air in abundance. Makes me kind of spoiled.

Cultural differences and similarities used to be a heavy interest of mine, now I am more focused on the intrinsic qualities of human life. Where the former was for me, about getting to understand other people and socialize, the present interest is more personal and self centred, hence my interest and studies into TLHP.


 Originally Posted By: Czereda
There are also some restrictions on fishing, attempts to limit emission of CO2 and segregation of rubbish. How effective those measures are on the global scale is disputable. Deforestation mainly takes place in poor and developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. There, the protection of environment is of secondary or no importance at all.


In Latin America, they have special emphasis on environmental preservation. I've been to some of these so called 'reserves.' The beaches are full to the brim, extending into the forests with garbage washed up from all around the world. It washes up into the creaks, on the ground in the jungle. It only goes in so far on land, but through the streams it goes all the way through the preserves, washed out back into the ocean on the other side.

These countries say they have a 'clean' standard. The eco label is not much more than a label. I am sure you guys know that, but my point is that it may be worse than you think.

The garbage is everywhere. The clean beaches are the tourist beaches. In fact, I wonder if they don't just have reserves made so they can save money on beach cleaning. You think about it, its a nice little conspiracy: Make 'untouchable' reserves, that way we only have to clean so many beaches and forests, and save money to build more tourist attractions.

None the less, the garbage is recorded being everywhere through The Amazon. You are also right about South America. Seems they take more action to keep deforestation a main priority than they do to preserve it. I wonder how much jungle we will have left in 10 years.

Better go see it while it lasts folks.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/02/16 09:38 PM)
Edit Reason: *edits
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106599 - 05/03/16 01:54 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
ungle.
The eco label is not much more than a label. I am sure you guys know that, but my point is that it may be worse than you think.


Are you talking about the "Eco" label concerning food ? or as a general marketing meme ? In either way, if you dig into that material you indeed open a can of worms, enough madness to write a separate post about that.

S.

Top
#106865 - 05/25/16 02:17 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Stick]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
 Originally Posted By: Naama
I had a friend (extremely intelligent man) - a scientific worker... He told me that inside "science" community a "biggest prostitution" is going on:
science workers and their bosses would do only certain researches and PURSUE only certain specific things,

Everyone has their own professional field. You can't expect a biologist to work on a nuclear reactor. His field of study does not permit it. It's only logical.

 Originally Posted By: CN
When I question the scientific method, I question who does the research, how its done, what information is kept, cut out, moulded, re-shaped to look like something else, who funds it, who gets hired, how those people and their influence change the information, who is going to publish the information, who is going to do more editing...

I wonder what the original data looks like before it is published into text books.

That's why there exists such a thing as "reproducibility" in the scientific method.
Or do you honestly believe only one study suffices in order for something to become valid. That would be quite.. naive.


There's a saying for the two of you.
"If you can't handle the heat..."
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106868 - 05/25/16 12:01 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Dimitri]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
That's why there exists such a thing as "reproducibility" in the scientific method.
Or do you honestly believe only one study suffices in order for something to become valid. That would be quite.. naive.


Reproducibility isn't so much my point here. More and more these days, scientific facts are presented in an the format of an entertainment piece or opinionated/biased article format, where more time is spent on entertaining the reader's emotions, rather than educating one with information.

What I may not have mentioned concerns what data is left out from the final presentation. Maybe you could reproduce a study, but if someone leaves information out, or censors it, then your understanding of the original process is limited.

At your second point, I did not mention anything about 'one study', but yes Dimitri, it only takes one scientist, and one experiment to prove a fact. It does not take a consensus of scientists, or a any 'prestigious certificate of acceptance' to prove that we breath air.

People like to argue and debate morality, who's right and wrong, and the facts are usually afterthoughts, or only brought up when absolutely necessary for better persuasion. Facts by themselves are often boring, or at least presented in a raw context. Opinionated pieces with political/celebrity figures who weigh in their opinion on science is, for example, more entertaining than a long paper with hard-to-read words, graphs, data sets, and non-characterized technical writing.

Point is, facts are obvious. Who is going to argue a fact Dimitri? Let's see here...:

Dolphins swim in water. Let's hear some opinions.

People need to breath air. Let's have controversy...

Earth has water.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/25/16 12:04 PM)
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106869 - 05/25/16 12:45 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
 Originally Posted By: CN
At your second point, I did not mention anything about 'one study', but yes Dimitri, it only takes one scientist, and one experiment to prove a fact. It does not take a consensus of scientists, or a any 'prestigious certificate of acceptance' to prove that we breath air.

... You are an idiot.
Or badly educated if you learned this about the scientific method.

Before something becomes FACT it implies thorough testing. It implies repeated testing. It implies insurmountable data to be gathered and interpretated. Before something becomes fact you need a multitude of everything. Fact is not your fucking public opinion. In case you fail to understand: opinion=/= facts.

 Originally Posted By: CN

What I may not have mentioned concerns what data is left out from the final presentation. Maybe you could reproduce a study, but if someone leaves information out, or censors it, then your understanding of the original process is limited.

Then it is called a fucking opinion. Not a fact.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106870 - 05/25/16 01:29 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CN
Reproducibility isn't so much my point here. More and more these days, scientific facts are presented in an the format of an entertainment piece or opinionated/biased article format, where more time is spent on entertaining the reader's emotions, rather than educating one with information.

What I may not have mentioned concerns what data is left out from the final presentation. Maybe you could reproduce a study, but if someone leaves information out, or censors it, then your understanding of the original process is limited.
You've filed your complaint with the wrong department. The prevalence of “adutation” is marketing’s bag, not engineering's. The same applies to the consumer in the manufacture of technology as in the manufacture of consent – caveat emptor. Nothing has changed in this regard. Scientists acquire the data by applying a method – the scientific method. The data is used in the synthesis of information; and it's a two way-street with that shit. Both presenters and consumers of this information are at liberty to determine what information is relevant and what isn't.

'Still barking up the wrong tree, man.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106871 - 05/25/16 02:19 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
Scientific method is perfect (no irony):
fact becomes a fact after the possibility of it, being otherwise,- is completely out ruled.

Never mind that science often (and more than often) states the obvious, banal, well-known, simple facts.
never mind that..!
still, its (science is) the best thing we have so far... (in terms of human progress of course).
So wont harp about just mentioned,
since these occasional pure moments of revelation (when science gets "real as hell") - are worth it.

........

The reason I opened this topic is because everyone basically needs to be ...fully aware of what is going on in reality.
(instead of having some "socially important concept" for an idol)

 Originally Posted By: Naama
all the scientific (eventual) "points"
so to say

are applied and placed onto our society always IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL INTERESTS OF LEGIT MAJORITY MAINSTREAM/GOVERNMENT


Edited by Naama (05/25/16 02:21 PM)
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106872 - 05/25/16 05:08 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1796
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
More and more these days, scientific facts are presented in an the format of an entertainment piece or opinionated/biased article format, where more time is spent on entertaining the reader's emotions, rather than educating one with information.


You confuse the study/research paper with its simplified interpretation/summary/analysis that you can read in various newspapers and journals, even those concerning science.

This is an example of the scientific research paper:

Incidence of birth defects after artificial insemination with frozen donor spermatozoa: a collaborative study of the French CECOS Federation on 11 535 pregnancies

This is an example of the newspaper article about some scientific research:

Birth defect risk rises with some fertility treatments

 Quote:
It does not take a consensus of scientists, or a any 'prestigious certificate of acceptance' to prove that we breath air.


Perhaps, your scientific "knowledge" is limited to the couple of facts you stated (which is all right as I'm not well-versed in science too) but science deals with more complex issues. Everyone knows we breathe but how do we breathe? How do our lungs look like? How do they work? How do other animals breathe? How do plants produce oxygen? If an average idiot knows the answers to these questions, it's because he was taught that at school. Not everything is visible to the bare eye. Of course, you can see certain things at school too, under the microscope. Someone invented it, you know.

That being said, the peer review is faulty at times. You can find this article interesting:

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility


Edited by Czereda (05/25/16 05:09 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#106878 - 05/26/16 11:38 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Czereda]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Before something becomes FACT it implies thorough testing. It implies repeated testing. It implies insurmountable data to be gathered and interpretated.


Yes, repeated testing only validates an experiment. My point is that the quantity or diversity of people matters little, if the process is well established to turn out the factual data. Does this makes sense?

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Before something becomes fact you need a multitude of everything.


Everything... care to elaborate?

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Fact is not your fucking public opinion. In case you fail to understand: opinion=/= facts.


Ok then...


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Then it is called a fucking opinion. Not a fact.


You are either not reading my post, or have little understanding of the English language, so here is one of my points restated:

If information is censored Dimitri, you don't know the raw data until you have access to the original information. That's not opinion.


 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
You've filed your complaint with the wrong department. The prevalence of “adutation” is marketing’s bag, not engineering's. The same applies to the consumer in the manufacture of technology as in the manufacture of consent – caveat emptor. Nothing has changed in this regard. Scientists acquire the data by applying a method – the scientific method. The data is used in the synthesis of information; and it's a two way-street with that shit. Both presenters and consumers of this information are at liberty to determine what information is relevant and what isn't.

'Still barking up the wrong tree, man.


The wrong tree? My original point to Dimitri cannot be too hard to understand. The raw data is often misrepresented, in this case by marketing, as you've made clear. So... thanks for elaborating my point AK \:D

 Originally Posted By: naama
still, its (science is) the best thing we have so far... (in terms of human progress of course).


Naama, I am going to say that Science is only one thing we humans have. I don't think Science is the pinnical of our existence, even if we were possibly engineered.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
Perhaps, your scientific "knowledge" is limited to the couple of facts you stated (which is all right as I'm not well-versed in science too) but science deals with more complex issues. Everyone knows we breathe but how do we breathe?


I understand, but you're branching off in another direction, perhaps because I am not being clear enough. When I mentioned scientific consensus, I really mean (in answer to Dimitrt) that it does only take one person to discover a fact. An agreement or disagreement between many people, scientists or not, will do nothing to change a fact. Another point of mine, is that when controversy fires up, it s about conflicting ideas concerning what people are going to do in reaction to any given set of data or discovery. Those are the lines of politics and social matters. In other words, you can argue a fact all day, but its still a fact. Dolphins swim in water. The 'how' isn't so much controversy, as much as study.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106879 - 05/26/16 01:34 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CN
The wrong tree? My original point to Dimitri cannot be too hard to understand. The raw data is often misrepresented, in this case by marketing, as you've made clear. So... thanks for elaborating my point AK
You're welcome, except I didn't. Raw data cannot be misrepresented. It is neither true nor false. Factuality and verifiability are properties of information which is synthesized (and this is key) from data.

Fabricated or corrupt, data it is still data, and it is generally understood that all data-sets are inherently incomplete due to time constraints: how long stuff that once was ain't, how long we've been at this whole acquiring-data game, how much time, labor, and associated cost is afforded to its collection, how much time and associated cost is afforded to the presentation of relevant and profitable information. This is just as well, since even comprehensive data-sets are not necessary to derive specific (mis)informative facts - which exist at the presentation layer.

Not all information is relevant, and of that which is relevant only a subset of that is at all profitable to synthesize - and only a still-smaller subset of that is profitable to present to you, the consumer.

This is not a constraint that science alone is bound by, nor is it one that the scientific method introduces. It applies in equal measure, and for the same reasons, to products of commerce and engineering as it does to products of faith and policy.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106886 - 05/27/16 10:02 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6744
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Naama
SO. Me... Being free from all kind of conspiracy theories here
and being free from different ideologies (as it often is the case with science criticism/tics)
I am stating
that considering science as best base
for ones worldview
is wrong, and its a big mistake.


Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. Do you smoke crack by chance? Your posts are nonsensical ramblings.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#106887 - 05/27/16 12:10 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: SIN3]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
I know that.
It does not stop many people from having it as their personal idol. And popping it out like the weasel out of box

No, I don't smoke crack. Do you?
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106890 - 05/27/16 02:11 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
@SIN: I spent a lot of time speaking with foreigners in college, and Naama's reminds me of it, which is why I feel I can grasp the subtext, so to speak. Have you considered English may not be Naama's first language?

*But then again, you'd be amazed at some of these 'college level' attempts at the art of written communication...

@Naama:

 Originally Posted By: Namma
It does not stop many people from having it as their personal idol. And popping it out like the weasel out of box


To elaborate: Some people see science as a useful tool, others, for some greater good beyond themselves. I honestly don't know how to explain it. Maybe belief in a deity is some kind of tool in its own way. Self help, as it were.

Some people replace their belief in god with evolution. They don't claim Atheism so much as a 'belief in evolution.'

I don't give a shit, I tell them. And they say I have to have something to believe in, and I say, "you're looking at it."

My last word for a while on this particular subject: The products of science are only as beneficial to us puny humans as we make them.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/27/16 02:33 PM)
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106891 - 05/27/16 02:12 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
 Originally Posted By: CN
If information is censored Dimitri, you don't know the raw data until you have access to the original information. That's not opinion.

If things are being censored or highlighted to further an agenda it ceases to be fact and merely becomes opinion.

That's plain English. Simple and straight-forward.

I'm under the impression that not only do you lack basic insight about the scientific method but also hold some "romanticized" idea about people in white labcoats.

Shit ain't like television.


If I were you I'd shut up and look up "Scientific method" on wikipedia as some sort of crash-education on the level of "science for dummies". --> And I'm quite serious on that part. DO IT!
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106892 - 05/27/16 02:26 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Dimitri]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
@Dimitri:

It seems we more or less share the same point of view, and are expressing a different context for the same fact, with some differences, which has you confused.

I am only going to clarifyone last time. If its an argument you desire, feel free to present another point or topic, here or PM.

You: It ceases to be fact and becomes opinion: more or less what I've been getting at all along, so... why the opposition?

Me: The raw data may look different from the more opinionated presentation.

More or less the same idea, no?

If the data has been misrepresented, or censored, by media, or agenda, you're still lacking knowledge of the original data. In this scenario, the fact is, you don't know the differences between the original process and data, compared to the manipulated final presentation.

One more point:

It seems to me you think I am attacking the scientific method, when I never was in the first place, so much as how information collected by the scientific method is presented, and *faith in scientific consensus.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/27/16 02:36 PM)
Edit Reason: *
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106893 - 05/27/16 08:44 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1796
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
Some people replace their belief in god with evolution. They don't claim atheism so much as a belief in evolution.


There are still some Christian denominations which take the Bible literally so they reject the theory of evolution solely on religious grounds. If I'm not mistaken, there are still schools which teach creationism i.e., the silly stuff that Noah took the baby dinosaurs upon his ark. It's mainly an American thing. In my country teachers must abide by the national curriculum so even the Catholic schools must teach evolution. They don't even protest since Catholicism treats the Bible as the mythos. Inspired by the Spirit of God, sure, but still a mythos so its meaning is not literal but symbolic. Here hardly any religious person is offended by evolution. I think it's the same in other European countries since they are more secular than Poland.

Now since Christianity got identified with creationism, some Atheists who are still in their rebellion stage, treat the theory of evolution as some cause to identify with and fight for. This is because if you live in the proverbial bible belt, among people who demand the right to study creationism and who vehemently oppose evolution as something godless, then you use evolution to emphasize your rebellious attitude towards the society you live in. Thus evolution stops being just a scientific theory and becomes the Cause you believe in.

More belligerent Atheists are into the cult of science wanting somehow to prove that Atheism is synonymous with science, that all religious people oppose science and you have to be an Atheist to appreciate science. The same attitude can be observed here in Poland perhaps because the Atheists are in the minority and the Catholic clergy interferes with politics.

It has nothing to do with science. Science is a methodology. Treating it like a substitute for a religion or a cause to identify with is childish. It's an indication that you are still angry with Daddy God and Mommy Church and you need to grow up. The theory of evolution is just that: a theory and there are still things we don't know and further research must be done and it is being done. It's something to study, analyze, experiment with. You are either good at it or you suck at it. There is no place for belief here.

When I was at school, I never liked science and I absolutely hated Biology, not because it offended my religious feelings but because it was difficult and boring. I was a total dumbass when it comes to Biology and I'm still really poor at science in general and not much interested in it. And I bet that those who treat science like a cult and worship it are no wiser. It's not the way to go about this stuff.


Edited by Czereda (05/27/16 08:51 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#106894 - 05/28/16 12:43 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3128
 Originally Posted By: CN
If the data has been misrepresented, or censored, by media, or agenda, you're still lacking knowledge of the original data.

Hence why I talked about reproducability.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106895 - 05/28/16 01:10 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Dimitri]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
I see what you're saying Dimitri, but the data doesn't always represent facts, as is the case with theories, especially nonsense like the climate change, and predicting the condition of the earth 600 years from now.

In this case you are totally right. Reproducibility reigns.

However, in the case of consensus (and peer review) its only a matter of reproducibility of the experiment to reveal its data. *Also consider when dealing with non-linear systems, or unpredictable things, it becomes more... complex.

Anyway, It only takes one to discover, and prove something. I am not saying that any given experiment should not be tested for validation. But this whole validation process is the issue. You could say the scientific method is good enough, but you and me both know it isn't so, as we've already made clear, much more than the scientific method alone play a part.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/28/16 01:29 AM)
Edit Reason: *
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106900 - 05/28/16 05:08 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CN
If the data has been misrepresented, or censored, by media, or agenda, you're still lacking knowledge of the original data.
That's not a very strong case against anything. For starters, data, in and of itself, is not misrepresented, it is given. Let's say I'm about to fly out somewhere for vacation. There's a shit-ton of airlines to choose from, and various measures and metrics presented to me by them with which I can go about evaluating which one to choose. The cost of the ticket, duration of the flights, all sorts of data given – which I can only take as a given. Now, if they're lying from the out-set and I plan to use that data (it is still data – fabricated or not) in my decision making process, then any subsequent decision making effort on my part is basically fucked from the get-go – and precisely to the extent that it being fucked-with by such a thing allows. This is true regardless of the methodology employed in making an informed decision. This is not news. Garbage in, garbage out: we get that. It's as much an issue for the scientific method as it is with any other, and it will still continue to be an issue for researcher and consumer alike even if something better than science comes along… unless that something better happens to be omniscience.

In the mean time I am presented with or given data. Limited though it is, and for as sus' as it may or may not be, it is still more data than I actually need for my purposes. For instance, I've determined, firstly, that my purpose isn't to verify the integrity of the data I am being given. I've also determined that my purpose isn't to evaluate which flight is the cheapest, since, although I have an abundance of data with which to provide that information, I really only care, first and foremost, IF the flight will arrive to its destination on time. That's a piece of data that has not been instantiated yet. The flight hasn't happened. There's no where I can look this up. This data has been omitted because it simply doesn't exist. Whenever I call the airline to ask a real person if my flight will arrive at its destination on time, the answer, I-shit-you-not, is always “yes”. What are the odds! They must be misrepresenting the facts. They can't possibly know that, and there's no way they have a 100% on time arrival rating. So I decide to do some digging. Turns out they only publish the time the flight was scheduled to depart, the time the flight actually departed, and the time the flight actually arrived at its destination.

It'd be nice if they published the time the flight was scheduled to arrive at its destination, since that actual vs scheduled landing is all I care about, really. For some reason they just didn't feel all that compelled to expend the cost and effort necessary to provide me with that information. Still, it's not a total loss – I have been given enough data to extrapolate an on time departure percentage. It's around 90%. It's a pretty safe bet that if it departs late, it's nearly always going to arrive late – common sense. The measures an aircraft can take to make up for lost-time in transit are limited by fuel and regulatory constraints. Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that if it departs on time it will arrive on time - shit happens in transit. Even so, I expect that the people who plan-out flight paths and whatnot, plan these sorts of things out based on more than just a series of fuck-it-why-nots, darts, and coin tosses. They measure these sorts of things based on how long the path from point A to point B takes to run, scheduling the departure to accommodate an arrival time forecast with a bit more accuracy than “sometime afternoon on the 25th – maybe earlier”. Subsequently, although there will be fewer on-time arrivals than on-time departures, the two are so tightly coupled that it won't be significantly fewer. I can count on somewhere <90% and >80% being my chances of my flight arriving on time. They could've just presented the historical schedule vs actual arrival time and saved me a bit of extrapolation, and maybe it would've provided a slightly more accurate number, but at the end of the day, that data is only as relevant as I determine it is and signifies only what I have made it out to signify. Even when giving me the data to work with, they make no promises as to what it actually means, in fact, what they do promise is that the flight, my flight, will get there on time even though the data itself clearly suggests otherwise.
 Originally Posted By: CN
the data doesn't always represent facts, as is the case with theories, especially nonsense like the climate change, and predicting the condition of the earth 600 years from now.
The data is as factual as the data is. It says nothing otherwise in and of itself. What the data says, or speaks to, is open to interpretation and subject to the whim of any method you chose to employ in order extrapolate facts from this data with.

The scientific method, fortunately, is consistent enough in practice to where noise in the data will stand-out. If insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, red-flags and tea-kettles go off when you actually get them. No change in process, no change in environment, but different results? Flaky input. The data is sus', and in ways that the consumer would be none the wiser regarding because, quite frankly, when it comes to interpreting data, most people just don't have a sufficient enough grasp of the subject matter to be qualified even to sort their own ass from their elbow from amongst the data given. We basically trust “the scientists” to catch that sorta thing and break-it-down for us, because not everyone really needs to know how the damn watch works, they just need to know the time. If the dorks in lab coats are given bad-data, they're only slightly less fucked than the hapless consumer - and by no fault or failing of their own.

 Originally Posted By: CZ
When I was at school, I never liked science and I absolutely hated Biology, not because it offended my religious feelings but because it was difficult and boring.
Even if given all the uncensored data, she, like most people, not only wouldn't know what to make of it, but flatly could not be fucked in the least to learn. Throwing all that stuff out there for the consumer/researcher to sift through has the opposite effect of informing. There's only so many hours in a day – and it really is some boring shit, right there. Fortunately, she's not utterly fucked when she gets a head ache and needs some Asprin or whatever. She doesn't walk into the store to find isles and isles of boxes labeled C3H6O, C8H9NO2, C9H13NO2, thinking “I should've paid more attention in school” :(. Nope, instead there are isles and isles of product packaged brightly to convey only the most relevant information to the consumer – a brand and the purpose. Maybe the chemical structure is somewhere on the box in fine print, maybe it's proprietary information – a secret blend of bath-salts and spices, maybe they're lying about that as well - it actually doesn't matter. It's not as if people are going to run home and do some sort of chemical analysis. They're going to run home and take it with some water, tea, or vodka, and it will work as-advertised. It's a trust assumption of convenience, and one that only gets weird to people who, for some reason or other, obsess about that sort of thing - skeptical to the point of impracticality.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106906 - 05/28/16 10:25 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: antikarmatomic]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 753
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
We basically trust “the scientists” to catch that sorta thing and break-it-down for us, because not everyone really needs to know how the damn watch works, they just need to know the time. If the dorks in lab coats are given bad-data, they're only slightly less fucked than the hapless consumer - and by no fault or failing of their own.


I don't know, if their job is to manage data and they can't, their job is on the line, and I am pretty sure it'd be their fault.

As for the data, the sword cuts both ways. Yes, the data by itself is only data, but it comes down to the convenience of programming: the computers are only going to present the data they are programmed for. You can repeat the same experiment over and over and get the same numbers, but no one is going to know that Earth will be like 50 years from now, no matter how many computer models you program.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#106911 - 05/29/16 12:07 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CN

I don't know, if their job is to manage data and they can't, their job is on the line, and I am pretty sure it'd be their fault.
Their job is to conduct research and analysis, not mine data.

 Originally Posted By: CN
Yes, the data by itself is only data, but it comes down to the convenience of programming: the computers are only going to present the data they are programmed for.
Gross over-simplifications aside, people are going to interpret the data in the manner they have been trained to interpret it with or without the computer. The game doesn't change at all when sifting through this stuff manually. Incidentally, you do realize that data didn't just “poof” into existence with advent of the computer, yes? Well, if ya don't know, now ya know. In other news: data is not synonymous with information, and neither of the two owe their existence to technology.

At any-rate, whether I run the numbers by hand, or devote an entire Oracle instance to processing the data regarding my flight's on time arrivals, the only way I'll ever know for sure if it will land on time is when it does or doesn't. This isn't news to anyone. I'm not exactly shitting my pants at the "revelation" that computer models can't predict what the Earth will look like 50 years from now. The data-sets aren't comprehensive, and even if they were, the time it would take to process them all might very well take 50 years to grok, and even then… well… it's a model – we're all very much aware of this. If these models are being marketed as infallible glimpses into the future that's marketing’s bag… or that people are reactionary morons – there's also that.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106943 - 05/31/16 02:12 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6744
Loc: Virginia
I'm familiar with little Miss Batshit, thanks.

I was actually referring to this statement:

 Quote:
SO. Me... Being free from all kind of conspiracy theories here


But do, carry on \:\)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#106951 - 05/31/16 04:50 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: SIN3]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
Quite arrogant of you.

There few people here whose intellect I envy, so to speak, - but certainly not yours.
SO the attitude would be mutual since you are clearly ruining a possibility of a productive dialogue.

All I'm trying to say here, that science and scientific method - being indeed "all we (humans) got",
yet all the scientific "conclusions" (speaking simply) - most of the time - are applied and molded into society certainly not "out of pure altruism" towards humans.
For example the case with "water fluoridation" and many other examples like that.
Would you disagree?
Yea, keep on disagreeing...
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106953 - 05/31/16 05:19 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1796
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
all the scientific "conclusions" (speaking simply) - most of the time - are applied and molded into society certainly not "out of pure altruism" towards humans.


Who's talking about "pure altruism"?

Scientists need to eat too. They offer their skills and service in return for money. The doctors also don't cure you for free. However, more often than not, it's a mutual benefit.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#106955 - 05/31/16 05:33 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Czereda]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
I thought that "science" essentially was meant to be a pure "altruism towards humanity".
To "serve" humanity.
That was the whole purpose of it.
And if they (scientists) are in fact, like you said here, - "humans too" - then the whole purpose of it (whole purpose of science)is defeated!

Especially math, (for examp.) as a science it was meant to be a "pure thing of beauty" - so to speak. Absolutely free of all human vices!
If you are familiar with the case of Grigory Perelman - a genius mathematician he recently refused big money and position, because it (agreeing to it) would automatically defeat the thing he was devoted to - a science of mathematics.
Again, he he was devoted to it very much, and felt like he has to "guard" that whole egregore personally. So it would remain free from big money, gluttony, and hypocrisy associated with it. So, (according to his explanation in interview,e.t.c..) he chose not go on that level which they offered him...
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106974 - 06/01/16 10:41 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
CanisMachina42 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1159
Loc: San Diego, CA
 Quote:
I thought that "science" essentially was meant to be a pure "altruism towards humanity".
To "serve" humanity.


No, there is nothing that exists with what you describe as it's primary function.

Science wasn't meant to be anything, specifically. It arose from the glaring fucking holes religion left filled. Science embraces the one true thing about ideas, that lacks any anthropomorphic will, answers are always subject to change.

Any "service to humanity" is a byproduct of answers remaining in constant flux.

I dont gey why the comparrison is even attempted. If science is bars of gold, then the spiritual is a stock certificate.

*gathers overall condemnation of why science is flawed.

Nothing, not even the pursuit of science, is immune from greed. Blame commerce.
_________________________
Broke his leg and had to be shot...

Top
#106981 - 06/02/16 12:51 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6744
Loc: Virginia
Me thinks she doth protest too much. If you believe that one can 'ruin' any productive discussion (produce what anyway? Little turds?) then my work here is done. Arrogant you say? How... EVIL.

 Quote:
All I'm trying to say here, that science and scientific method - being indeed "all we (humans) got",
Sigh... It's not all we got.


 Quote:

yet all the scientific "conclusions" (speaking simply) - most of the time - are applied and molded into society certainly not "out of pure altruism" towards humans.
And this is an objective fact and motivation? My point is thus demonstrated.


 Quote:
For example the case with "water fluoridation" and many other examples like that.
Would you disagree?
Yea, keep on disagreeing...


Make a more intelligible argument, I may have something to agree or disagree with.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113349 - 07/06/17 03:02 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: SIN3]
Ghostly1 Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/11
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
Beating dead horses is fun.

Actually no it benefits neither the horse or you.

Back to the original post, and possibly its intent, that science in itself is a waste of time because it is not being used to its true potential. I could agree to an extent this is true. There were days in our past where even proving science exits was a death sentence. The world isn't flat?! Blasphemy! You were tortured and killed for falling out of line. Ironically there are still examples of this around the world where ideology hasn't lost its grasp on the minds of the populace. They are content to demonise television shows and fictional characters and you would argue that altruism could solve that. Ask anyone in North Korea who is responsible for the sun coming up, the list is short.

True altruism like what Jonas Salk did to save kids from polio is rare. There is no profit in curing disease, and grants don't pack the punch they used to. No one cares what the byproducts of insects fucking is. Certainly governments are strapped for funds because they were busy buying slick advertising for the next sales pitch for reelection based on the cure rat semen provided with their contributions.

True altruism gets you ostracized from both the scientific community and business.

Business is actually one of the most successful religions I have seen. It isn't afraid to change faces to suit the market or the buyer. Profits are worshipped and stupid people get famous. Disproving that what might be stupid but makes you rich isn't stupid. IE: Kardashians and pet rocks.

The cure for cancer, not treatment will be one our greatest achievements, but also the race to market it will make Pokemon Go look like snake oil. The truth is we spend infinitely more money on beauty enhancements and technology to keep us entertained we have almost guaranteed we will never see a cure. But you will have wrinkle free ass cheeks.


Edited by Ghostly1 (07/06/17 03:03 AM)
_________________________
Become a force of nature.

Top
#113351 - 07/06/17 09:59 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Ghostly1]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6744
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Ghostly1
True altruism like what Jonas Salk did to save kids from polio is rare. There is no profit in curing disease, and grants don't pack the punch they used to


A few isolate cases do not make a categorization. There's no such thing as a pure act of Altruism anyway. The Scientist that manages a break through, gets all the accolades and profits for doing so. The idea that it *should* be for helping humanity is a Utopian ideal. Science is a method, not a paradigm. Reality doesn't require agreement with it. If you can manage to observe things as they really are vs. how you believe them to be, consider yourself aware and nothing more.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113352 - 07/06/17 12:01 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: SIN3]
Ghostly1 Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/11
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
I agree completely. All we have is a few idealists swimming against a tide of greed and power. Searching for and knowing the truth is at the heart of all scientists and to most Satanists anyway. Those uttering incantations in their underwear between commercials aren't looking for truth but a shortcut. Doctor Salk and Tesla are two who come to mind who having achieved notoriety didn't see many returns for their efforts in a monetary sense. We are fortunate to still be here, the next plague hasn't hit us yet.
_________________________
Become a force of nature.

Top
#113494 - 07/17/17 01:49 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2551
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
"Science" might generally be defined as the search for and statement of the constitutional and behavioral characteristics of the thing being studied.

In academia there are the physical sciences and the social (or behavioral) sciences.

The former are the simpler and more straightforward, as they result from the "scientific methods" applies to OU phenomena. First there's observation. Then hypothesis. Then theory. Finally testing by repetition under controlled circumstances. If the testing is positive, you've got a new statement of natural law.

The latter are much dicier, because they involve human consciousness, which can be moth OU-driven and/or SU-discretionary. Probabilities here, but no laws.

I am a Political Scientist. Imagine my consternation when, in my Ph.D. studies, I was told that PS is not a science at all. Everything it discovers falls short of law in the precise sense. Those who proclaim that they know it absolutely eventually discover how they don't.

All the above said, I don't see any reason to bash science if you're clear-headed as to how it can and can't be used. It's a tool, not a god.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#114356 - 09/17/17 06:22 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
fiendish Offline
member


Registered: 02/27/16
Posts: 253
Well, some individuals invented PS for their own well being. To say it's a tool and not a god is blasphemy , since you accept the existence of some god only by mentioning the possibility of its existence.
In fact, the logical line of events to follow observation and hypothesis is experiment and proof. THEN theory and testing. In some cases, if you miss a part, you miss everything.
_________________________
The truth cannot be deleted.

Top
#114371 - 09/18/17 11:23 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Ghostly1]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6744
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Ghostly1
. Doctor Salk and Tesla are two who come to mind who having achieved notoriety didn't see many returns for their efforts in a monetary sense. We are fortunate to still be here, the next plague hasn't hit us yet.


You confuse monetary gains with legacy. Both certainly received the pat on the back, the fame, and profit to boot. What was it that Salk said? Ah yes “Hope lies in dreams, in imagination and in the courage of those who dare to make dreams into reality."

It can be ego-fulfilling to provide a solution to a problem that no one else had prior to YOU stepping up to bat.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page all of 4 1234>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.073 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 69 queries. Zlib compression disabled.