Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if material is immaterial?
#1
This is a big question.

I don't expect anyone to like it.

We tend to defend our comfort zone with vehemence.

Even when science questions it.

There exists the quest for truth.
And there exists a sinister counter part to that:
 
The need to settle for a truth.

This is why I've suggested that science qualifies as a religion.

It not only finds the nature of reality and our consciousness uncomfortable, it leans towards disregarding anything that may upset it.

It has no capacity for considering that which leaves no evidence.

Even though, by recent estimates, 94% of the known universe is comprised of undetectable 'dark energy.

The 'nuts and bolts' approach' is clearly lacking.

We may need to embrace a 4th dimension, at the very least.
Reply
#2
(08-06-2017, 04:58 PM)stanky Wrote:  This is a big question.

Nope, it's not even a question. You can check by getting something material, like a hammer, and whacking yourself upside the head with it.

If it hurts, it's material and real.

(08-06-2017, 04:58 PM)stanky Wrote:  We tend to defend our comfort zone with vehemence.

Even when science questions it.

Outside of pseudoscience or Philosophy 101 I can't say I've ever heard anyone question whether material exists.

(08-06-2017, 04:58 PM)stanky Wrote:  It has no capacity for considering that which leaves no evidence.

Even though, by recent estimates, 94% of the known universe is comprised of undetectable 'dark energy.

The 'nuts and bolts' approach' is clearly lacking.

We may need to embrace a 4th dimension, at the very least.

You completely miss the point. We know DM/DE is there because it does interact with the known universe. The nuts & bolts are working fine.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#3
(08-06-2017, 04:58 PM)stanky Wrote:  It has no capacity for considering that which leaves no evidence.

It can't have.  That's the point.  Religion promotes beliefs that can't be supported by evidence. 

When you call science a religion, I agree with you in some ways, but I see it as the humans who put 'faith' in science being religiously inclined (as the 'average' human is known to be), and not science behaving as a religion. 

I could accept "Science is a reluctant religion because humans are basically sheep", or something like that. 
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#4
Quote:When you call science a religion, I agree with you in some ways, but I see it as the humans who put 'faith' in science being religiously inclined (as the 'average' human is known to be), and not science behaving as a religion. 

Of course it's only humans who are capable of inventing religion or woo or bullshitting, it doesn't occur naturally anywhere in the entire bloody universe. 

I thought that was how Stanky was presenting the argument, as a human construct, a mind bend, currently 'deifying' science.   Not as science posing as a god.

I see it in the same way that people have 'deified' climate science.  They have total faith in everything they read, and I'm talking about both 'sects' here, even though they have no scientific credentials whatever themselves.  like me.

I get pilloried by both sects of  'climatism' as I'm kind of agnostic about it and see the whole thing as being hijacked for ransom.  Same with science.  Hijacked by big Pharma and all those other ogres using it to make billions but selling their wares under the marketing spiel of  'it's science' hence it's good for you."

 
Reply
#5
Yeah, it's the co-opting that bothers me.
The method is fine.

In the 50's and 60's, all manner of tv ads has actors in lab coats doing 'experiments' with new wash day miracles or advanced cigarette filters.
This was a moment wherein science began to be sold as a Faith-based religion.

It's not the method that is corrupt, it's what is chosen to be done with it, and the financier's agendas....much of which has long vacated the role of improving the quality of life.

As for material itself, it tends to break down as you look closer.
The quantum realm is where it begins...and it behaves in ways that defy the logic of materialists.
Reply
#6
(08-07-2017, 08:44 AM)stanky Wrote:  Yeah, it's the co-opting that bothers me.
The method is fine.

In the 50's and 60's, all manner of tv ads has actors in lab coats doing 'experiments' with new wash day miracles or advanced cigarette filters.
This was a moment wherein science began to be sold as a Faith-based religion.

This is what pisses me off - you clearly show where the problem is, then still blame science.

Makes no sense at all.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#7
No reason to be pissed off.

I just think the method needs an extra clause...possibly like the one they have in medicine.
It needs some means to protect itself from the corruption it suffers from below.
At some point, the method can't claim its objectivity.
It needs a means of self governing.
Reply
#8
(08-07-2017, 12:33 PM)stanky Wrote:  It needs a means of self governing.

Already embedded. It's called peer review.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#9
Often fails.
Often corrupted.
Reply
#10
Peer review is a good model for corruption, isn't it? Still, I don't see alternatives working any better.
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)