"Only real science allowed"

[FiorSirtheoir]

What is real science, could someone please elucidate?

 

[endlessness]

Where does the question come from? I wonder if you already have some thoughts on this ?

I mean, I hate quoting wikipedia because im sure you can look yourself but: Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge" ) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

So what is not real science? Maybe are you talking about pseudoscience?

If it can be tested systematically with repeatable experiments, its science.. Doesnt HAVE to be a peer-reviewed publication. For example when a member of the Nexus does a side-by-side test on extractons, to see if acid X is better than Y or whatever, and then shares the result, thats also science. Controlling variables, experimenting. But when people make claims that sound scientific but arent (either because they arent reproducible, like, say, masaru emoto's water "experiments", or so on), thats pseudoscience, or not 'real' science.

 

[FiorSirtheoir]

So strictly measurable, repeatable observations of the material nature of the universe, for the sake of this section of the forum?

The question comes from what appears, to me, to be the dogmatic view that all that is can be explained from a strictly material or matter prospective, this is an imperfect model simply because the material universe, theoretically, makes up about 4%-7% of all that is. I suppose I am trying to gauge the paradigm of the 'scientific' nexians in regard to what is viewed as science for two purposes: 1) I don't want to inappropriately post and 2) Science is beginning to drastically change in regard to observation and the observable - the development of the science of conscientiousness.

Why is Emoto's work pseudoscience? He runs tests systematically with repeatable experiments and records the observations, granted I have read very little on his work, however he appears, from what I have read, to follows the scientific method, except perhaps when he theorizes on the effects that conscientiousness has.

Thanks for the reply endlessness

 

[SnozzleBerry]

[Emoto] runs tests systematically with repeatable experiments and records the observations

Ehhhh, not really...his results have NEVER been duplicated, and I'm pretty sure he picked the photos that were most conducive to his claims to display...that's clearly not science, imo.

 

[Citta]

So strictly measurable, repeatable observations of the material nature of the universe, for the sake of this section of the forum?

The question comes from what appears, to me, to be the dogmatic view that all that is can be explained from a strictly material or matter prospective, this is an imperfect model simply because the material universe, theoretically, makes up about 4%-7% of all that is. I suppose I am trying to gauge the paradigm of the 'scientific' nexians in regard to what is viewed as science for two purposes: 1) I don't want to inappropriately post and 2) Science is beginning to drastically change in regard to observation and the observable - the development of the science of conscientiousness.

Why is Emoto's work pseudoscience? He runs tests systematically with repeatable experiments and records the observations, granted I have read very little on his work, however he appears, from what I have read, to follows the scientific method, except perhaps when he theorizes on the effects that conscientiousness has.

Thanks for the reply endlessness

You fall into a common trap here, with the 4% known universe thingy. I wrote about this in another thread that discussed dark matter. I can refer you to my post in this link (the post is the long one at the bottom). I think it explains pretty decently what this "unseen" stuff is, and that it actually is matter and thus a subject to science, observations and experiments - it's just not the "ordinary" matter that we ourselves our composed of.

I also wrote about Emoto's work in another thread, I'll copy paste my post into this one since it isn't that long;

Masaru Emoto is not taken seriously in the scientific community. He has insufficient experimental controls and he does not share enough details with the rest of the community. He has also been criticized for designing experiments in a way that really opens up for human error influencing the results. He also readily admits he is not a scientist, and his photographers are known to choose the most pleasing pictures. On top of that he sells products based on his claims without presenting any decent scientific research references that backs it up, which is a big no-no sign for his scientific credibility, and not to say the least a serious ethical issue. He is a fraud, and his super water is bullshit.

 

[Xt]

I love you folk. /geektweak

 

[Citta]

The question comes from what appears, to me, to be the dogmatic view that all that is can be explained from a strictly material or matter prospective

It is not necessary a dogmatic belief, because the assumption has worked pretty well so far. What was thought to be divine intervention just a few hundred years ago is now well explained through the known laws and forces of physics and the interactions these laws and forces create. What else is it that can't be, sooner or later, explained through a material or matter prospective? There are no reasonable hints to the existence of such phenomena.

Such hints would be impossible anyway, because if something can't be explained through a material perspective it means it doesn't interact with matter at all, and thus is indetectable by any means because it lies completely outside of our realm. If some phenomenon interacts with matter, it is in principle detectable, and if some phenomenon does not interact with matter - we can't know shit about it, making it just metaphysical speculations and philosophical musings where everyone's opinion is just as right or just as wrong (probably the latter).

 

[FiorSirtheoir]

I will stay off the science tread. Thanks for the glimpse, as odd as it has been. And all you guys have experienced spice in one form or another?

 

[Citta]

I will stay off the science tread. Thanks for the glimpse, as odd as it has been. And all you guys have experienced spice in one form or another?

Many times =)

By the way, why will you stay off, and what is it that is so odd?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

And all you guys have experienced spice in one form or another?

Speaking of dogmas......

 

[FiorSirtheoir]

Don't get me wrong, I have an appreciation for scientific method I just feel it is not sufficient in the explanation of all that is. The Vedics say that the material accounts for only 25% of all that is, now I will give you that all levels of reality are interpenetrating, however just because a higher reality/dimension has an effect upon the material doesnt mean that it is entirely of the material.

Citta, Snozzleberry - your posts aren't very persuasive in your attempts to discredit Masaru Emoto, nor in your attempt to bounce back 'dogma' on me. I gave up dogma when I stepped away from Hebrew/Judeo/Christian/Muslim religious systems - not to say that there isn't esoteric knowledge and truth to be gleaned from those narratives, however I can assure you I have no intentions of putting my head into a different box now that I have it out of that one. I assumed that there would be a different perspective, perhaps an integral one, here on the nexus in regard to the science of the material and that of the conscience.

I simply wanted to know what "Only real science allowed" meant. I have my answer, well from at least 4 of you, in varying degrees.

 

[Citta]

Citta, Snozzleberry - your posts aren't very persuasive in your attempts to discredit Masaru Emoto

Wait, what? How can that not be persuasive to descredit him? Jeez, what more do you need to see the obvious?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I don't need to disprove Emoto...others have already done the work and it can be found easily enough with Google.

I am not trying to "bounce back dogma" on you...this isn't some childish "I am rubber you are glue". I am merely pointing out that saying "If you do DMT you must think X, believe Y and know Z" - which is what the statement "And all you guys have experienced spice in one form or another?" is getting at in its essence - is a dogma in and of itself.

As gibran2 said in another thread, "Those who still believe in Santa Claus shouldn’t criticize too vigorously those who still believe in the Easter Bunny." You can't get upset at perceiving people to be dogmatic (not that I feel I cling to science dogmatically...there are certainly areas it falls short, imo) when you yourself cling to your own dogmas.

 

[FiorSirtheoir]

:lol:

What dogma? That there is more to the universe than what can be seen with the eyes, heard with the ears, smelled with the nose, or touched with the flesh? The only people that I am aware of that believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause are children who's parents see fit to lie to them, because it is fun:roll:. 'Science' does provide answers, but it also falls short in many, many ways (agreed), and has caused a great deal of confusion and loss, easily as much as the Roman Cult has. Perhaps I am presuming to much about others DMT experiences, perhaps it isn't the spirit molecule for some - fair enough, it is just surprising that some consider it nothing more than a simple molecule that has profound effects on the brain. It just seems a limited perspective considering the implications of quantum mechanics, such as wave particle duality, string theory (which is said to be in the Vedics though I haven't confirmed it for myself), M-Theory, Strange behavior at long distances, etc...

 

[soulfood]

Science knows that it's not perfect, or it would stop.

At least science puts it's hands up when it figures out it was wrong. Not only admits it, but loves it, lives for it and considers a correction in error a breakthrough.

I'd like to know another reliable way of explaining the physical universe that isn't science, though I doubt it exists.

 

[FiorSirtheoir]

I'd like to know another reliable way of explaining the physical universe that isn't science, though I doubt it exists.

Definitely reliable for the physical, when are things no longer physical? Is an atom physical, is a quark, or one of the hundreds of sub atomic particles? Is conscientiousness physical?

At least science puts it's hands up when it figures out it was wrong. Not only admits it, but loves it, lives for it and considers a correction in error a breakthrough.

I have read evidence to the contrary, out of the box, world view changing discoveries are not welcomed and embraced, they are ridiculed, meet with arrogance, puffed up ego, and sometimes destroyed and buried, right along with the man or woman who discovered it.

Thanks for the input, no negativity here just conversation. Steel sharpens steel as I have seen.

 

[soulfood]

I'd like to know another reliable way of explaining the physical universe that isn't science, though I doubt it exists.

Definitely reliable for the physical, when are things no longer physical? Is an atom physical, is a quark, or one of the hundreds of sub atomic particles? Is conscientiousness physical?

Well conscientiousness is a concept, but other than that all the things you listed were indeed physical.

At least science puts it's hands up when it figures out it was wrong. Not only admits it, but loves it, lives for it and considers a correction in error a breakthrough.

I have read evidence to the contrary, out of the box, world view changing discoveries are not welcomed and embraced, they are ridiculed, meet with arrogance, puffed up ego, and sometimes destroyed and buried, right along with the man or woman who discovered it.

Many of the most important scientists have also received this same treatment as knowledge is often controversial. Though I'm curious, if these things have been destroyed and buried, how do you know of them to be of such importance?

 

[Citta]

Perhaps I am presuming to much about others DMT experiences, perhaps it isn't the spirit molecule for some - fair enough, it is just surprising that some consider it nothing more than a simple molecule that has profound effects on the brain. It just seems a limited perspective considering the implications of quantum mechanics, such as wave particle duality, string theory (which is said to be in the Vedics though I haven't confirmed it for myself), M-Theory, Strange behavior at long distances, etc...

Why is this surprising? There is nothing that implies that DMT is anything more than a spesific molecule with certain properties, interacting with the brain to create alternative states of consciousness. This is not a limited perspective, it is a reasonable perspective that stays away from totally arbitrary speculation. Furthermore, may I ask how you connect DMT with quantum mechanics and string theory?

 

[Citta]

Definitely reliable for the physical, when are things no longer physical? Is an atom physical, is a quark, or one of the hundreds of sub atomic particles? Is conscientiousness physical?

Atoms, quarks and the sub atomic particles are physical, and there is a strong connection between consciousness and the brain.

I have read evidence to the contrary, out of the box, world view changing discoveries are not welcomed and embraced, they are ridiculed, meet with arrogance, puffed up ego, and sometimes destroyed and buried, right along with the man or woman who discovered it.

Yes, this is true. But that is not science itself, but humans doing science. There are personal emotions involved in their careers as scientists, there is rivalry and so on. Eventually however, paradigm shifts are accepted, once the accumulated evidence can't be denied.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Perhaps I am presuming to much about others DMT experiences, perhaps it isn't the spirit molecule for some - fair enough, it is just surprising that some consider it nothing more than a simple molecule that has profound effects on the brain. It just seems a limited perspective considering the implications of quantum mechanics, such as wave particle duality, string theory (which is said to be in the Vedics though I haven't confirmed it for myself), M-Theory, Strange behavior at long distances, etc...

This presumption is the dogma to which I referred earlier.

DMT is incredibly spiritual for me...however it clearly hasn't led me to the same conclusions that it has led you. For you to declare that those who have experienced DMT must be any given way is a dogma that closes you off to the reality that myself and others live (as evidenced by this thread).

Just because I've had my metaphysical doors blown off by DMT (and other substances) doesn't mean I can't still find a good spot for science on my toolbelt...it is remarkably useful in day to day life.

Oh...and the santa analogy was simply saying if you hold onto dogmas, you have no right to criticize what you perceive to be others dogmas...fairly simple/straightforward, imo...no need to obfuscate the point in order to laugh at it