Why mainstream science contradicts itself

[rjb]

Oh, come on now, what makes you say that? :lol:

Hehe, I was only making a joke, no pun intended.

None expected

Science is after all run by scientists...attitudes need to change, that's for sure.

Scientists do not run science, scientists are doing science - or rather, science is what scientists does. It's a method. What kind of attitudes needs to change, by the way?

Biases need to go away.

 

[ayanami_rei13]

why try to change the world?
why try to change other peoples bias?

go around them.... ?!!

 

[onethousandk]

Science is after all run by scientists...attitudes need to change, that's for sure.

Scientists do not run science, scientists are doing science - or rather, science is what scientists does. It's a method. What kind of attitudes needs to change, by the way?

Biases need to go away.

Couldn't this be said about essentially every discipline everywhere? As with all things there are people along the entire spectrum. Don't decry the entire dance just because some people don't play nice. That's like the people that say just because parts of our government are run poorly we don't need any government.

 

[r2pi]

Time itself begins at the big bang.

Nothing was created at that moment. In order to have created something, there must have been nothing before that moment. But there is no such thing as before that moment, because time starts at that moment.

Nevertheless it's pretty darn mysterious - most scientists will admit it.

Still -- everything around us appears to be moving away from us. The universe appears to be expanding and has been for billions of years (because even very distant light that's taken billions of years to reach us seems to have come from galaxies that are moving away from us).

These are pretty direct observational facts that seem to suggest a Big Bang type scenario. Yes, it's a wierd concept - but no-one yet has come up with anything that explains our observations in a way that's any less wierd.

 

[r2pi]

P.S. a couple of other possible resolutions of the conservation of mass/energy problem raised by the OP.

1) prior to inflation, there may have been a singularity - all of the mass/energy of the Universe was always there but it was in an infinitely small volume

2) the total energy of the universe may be zero. Matter in a finite universe has negative gravitational potential energy (because it would take energy to move everything infinitely far apart, against their gravitational attraction). The magnitude of this energy may be equal to the positive energy that exists in the form of matter in the universe.

To answer the OP in a more general sense, scientific theories are often contradictory. Two of the best-tested theories currently known, relativity and quantum mechanics, are in some sense contradictory. It has to be remembered that theories are nothing but models of the way the universe works. They are, and possibly always will be, imperfect.

 

[ayanami_rei13]

Time itself begins at the big bang.

or did it begin when prehistory

became history????????

 

[r2pi]

Time itself begins at the big bang.

or did it begin when prehistory

became history????????

I'm guessing you're also interested in the differences between solar and atomic time .

 

[ayanami_rei13]

Time itself begins at the big bang.

or did it begin when prehistory

became history????????

I'm guessing you're also interested in the differences between solar and atomic time .

Yeah.

But my real interest is the difference between real truth....
...and learned truth...

both are true, to me.

 

[Saidin]

Scientists freely admit their limitations. The Standard Model is so popular because its equations can accurately predict almost all physical phenomena- it's hard to argue with that.

Except that the Standard Model might be totally wrong, as new evidence might suggest...

Standard Model Flawed? Subatomic Particles' 'Misbehavior' Pokes Holes In Reigning Physics Theory

'Misbehaving' Particles Poke Holes In Reigning Physics Theory

'Misbehaving' Particles Poke Holes In Reigning Physics Theory

www.huffingtonpost.com

 

[Saidin]

Are you serious?

Tell me how can DMT reliably tell how the universe works and how this can be shared and used in a practical manner.

One could make the argument that Amazonian Shamans have a pretty good idea as to how the universe works, and the vast majority of their knowledge would be denied by or unacceptable to scientists.

 

[polytrip]

Tek:'what this does, is steal away the soul of man'.

And what if it would be true that the brain is the source of our counsciousness? Would you be willing to lie to yourself, and to deliberately ignore neuro-science because you don´t like the idea of it? Because the idea of an immaterial entity appeals more to you than facts that have been well established?

But the most important question is ofcourse: Why would knowing that my thoughts are produced by a series of processes, steal away my soul? I know that a clock is not some magical device that realy knows what time it is, but a machine....But does that steal away it´s usefullness to me? Does it realy change anything, when i know that there´s no live symphony orchestra in my soundsystem? Do i enjoy the music less, when i know that it´s just physical instead of magical processes that cause it to produce sound?

Why would something need to be immaterial to be of any real value? Why would something be stolen from you, the moment it turns out to have an inner working?
Could my mind only have any real value to me, when it would be completely immaterial?

Explain to me please, how i´m being robbed of something, the moment i would find out that i have a brain. Nothing realy changes. Maybe i would focus less on possible advantages i may enjoy in the afterlife, when leading a fruitfull catholic life. But would focussing more on the here and now, instead of on an afterlife of wich it´s existence maybe entirely fictional, make my life actually less meaningfull?

 

[Citta]

Except that the Standard Model might be totally wrong, as new evidence might suggest...

Standard Model Flawed? Subatomic Particles' 'Misbehavior' Pokes Holes In Reigning Physics Theory
'Misbehaving' Particles Poke Holes In Reigning Physics Theory

Totally wrong is an exaggeration, and of course everybody versed in science knows the Standard Model is not the "end all" answer. If anyone thinks it is, they don't understand what science is and what it does.

Before this experiment the Standard Model of particle physics were known to have limitations, unanswered questions and what not. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, because even though this experiment (among other things) pokes holes in the Standard Model, it's still not a bad theory. In fact, it is working AMAZINGLY well to explain almost everything in the microscopic realm thus far. Guyomech also said that it explains almost all physical phenomena, but not everything. Scientists freely and frequently admits this.

Now, let's take an example; Newton's theory of gravitation and the motion of planets (Principia, 1687) were also in a lot of trouble during the 18th and 19th century. From the day it was published, there were observations the theory could not account for. After a while the shit got more serious when the theory couldn't make sense of Mercury's orbits, and in order to solve this mess physics had to wait for Einstein general theory of relativity. However, Newtons law of gravitation still works like a charm in most situations, it is used in a great deal of situations, and it is not wrong at all - it's just approximate. Every goddamn theory and model in physics is approximate, and all students of physics still have to go through the old, inaccurate Newtonian mechanics and all the way up to the more and more accurate stuff.

In the same way the standard model is not wrong per se, and it might be relieved by some better theory that can explain more in the future (with all likelihood it will), but people will still have to learn about it and people will still use it in many situations, just like we use classical, newtonian mechanics to build bridges, shoot up spacerockets, build cars and calculate a hell of a lot that doesn't require us to use relativity or quantum mechanics, for example.

So again, what are you getting at?

One could make the argument that Amazonian Shamans have a pretty good idea as to how the universe works, and the vast majority of their knowledge would be denied by or unacceptable to scientists.

Are you serious? How can one argue this? Can they tell me how to cure a variety of diseases, cure certain types of cancer, make advanced surgery, tell me how the internet works, what lights the sun, how the planets move, how the chemical elements were formed, how they react to make new substances, how earth was made, how life evolved, how the brain works, how to land people on the Moon, predict the weather, predict a hell of alot many others things and launch satellites into orbit? Can they tell me the principles behind modern technology, behind modern medicine, how far it is to the sun, how big the earth is, how much it weighs, how far it is to the nearest galaxy, what the sun is made of? The list goes on and on and on and on. I could write a book with a list of questions. Many of these questions however, can't be answered by shamans accurately and to the extent modern society and scientists can. Why? Because shamans don't have such a good idea of how the universe works, period. Even we don't have that a good understanding, but we've come a hell of lot further than Amazonian shamans. Arguing otherwise seems silly to me, so I am seriously interested in how you figure you can argue that they know pretty well how the universe works. These people, unless educated, knows just as much we did thousands of years ago in most areas.

Now, this is not to say they might not have principles and views on certain things that are far more healthier than what many of us in a modern society have (the connection and care for nature, the value of family etc), perhaps well versed in certain therapautical practices and techniques to heal a sick mind and so on, but how the universe works? Come on.

 

[Korey]

Are you serious?

Tell me how can DMT reliably tell how the universe works and how this can be shared and used in a practical manner.

One could make the argument that Amazonian Shamans have a pretty good idea as to how the universe works, and the vast majority of their knowledge would be denied by or unacceptable to scientists.

Sounds like a very poor argument.

 

[endlessness]

Are you serious?

Tell me how can DMT reliably tell how the universe works and how this can be shared and used in a practical manner.

One could make the argument that Amazonian Shamans have a pretty good idea as to how the universe works, and the vast majority of their knowledge would be denied by or unacceptable to scientists.

Care to expand in what way they know how the universe works?

And how comes some shamans are completely opposed to another and have opposing views of how the universe works and what is 'right' or 'wrong', which one is right?

And how comes many are eager to learn from western knowledge, if they already know how the universe works?

Sounds like you're idealizing shamans. Not to say we can't learn from them some things (like related to sustainability or social organization), but to say they know more about the universe is a wild claim, and the burden of proof is on you to show in what way.

PS: Often the knowledge indigenous people comes from something akin to scientific method: isolating variables and coming to conclusions. For example they give a certain plant to someone sick, they note the results, they give another plant, they note the results, and then they make conclusions based on this, and this is passed through generations. Or they observe how in different times of the day (i.e., the different variables), certain animals they want to hunt appear, or whatever else. This is essentially how science works.

 

[Saidin]

Totally wrong is an exaggeration,

You are correct, I did not choose my words carefully. Totally wrong is an exaggeration. The point I was inferring, and which I did not expand upon, is that what we think of as true today may not necessarily be so tomorrow. Paradigms shift all the time, and saying the world is a certain way today does not mean we will have the same understanding tomorrow.

One can make that argument easily. Just because their worldview is not the same as the western variety does not mean it lacks validity or truth. I am sure they have their own version of the story as to how life evolved, how the earth was made, how the planets came into being, etc. Questions that have not been answered beyond a doubt by science.

There are certain questions you pose that are in contradiction even among scientists. How the sun works for example, how the earth was made, how life evolved...

They cure diseases all the time, stories abound how cancer has been cured, depression, mental disorders...Modern medicine has learned an enormous amount from shamans, and given them none of the credit. The internet, landing people on the moon, launching satellites, how big the earth is, how much it weighs, how far it is to the sun, etc, all seem to be irrelevant questions from an indiginous perspective.

These people have a much better understanding about how we are all connected, how life works symbiotically, how we are connected to nature and each other. A much greater understanding about consciousness, which is the fundamental property of the universe from a primacy of consciousness perspective. Some cultures knew about the center of the galaxy before science even knew that we were in a galaxy!

So yes, I would say that shamanic cultures have a pretty good understanding as to how the universe works. We as a culture deny much of what they purportedly "know" but that does not make them wrong and us right...

 

[Saidin]

And how comes some shamans are completely opposed to another and have opposing views of how the universe works and what is 'right' or 'wrong', which one is right?

Sounds like you're idealizing shamans. Not to say we can't learn from them some things (like related to sustainability or social organization), but to say they know more about the universe is a wild claim, and the burden of proof is on you to show in what way.

Just as scientists are completely opposed to one another and have opposing views of how the universe works. For example: Big Bang vs Electric Universe or any of the other contradicting cosmological theories that are out there.

I never said they know MORE about the universe. I said they have a pretty good idea, one that has likely been passed down generation to generation for thousands of years. More consistent and less likely to change than our own. Just because their theories or explanations are different than modern interpretations (all ranging from wild to educated guesses) does not mean they are invalid or wrong.

I don't idealize shamans, but when one has experienced inexplicable, dare I say miraculous things they have facilitated one would naturally give a bit of credence to what they have to say about who we are and why we are here...

 

[joedirt]

Science isn't about existential questioning (for example science has no say whether everything we see is a part of a consistent illusion/matrix/virtual reality or not), but science is a method for finding the patterns inside this universe/illusion/virtual reality. Show me another way that is as or more reliable in finding these patterns and overcoming subjective bias (and open to falsifying the old more established theories)... I really doubt you can

You pretty much said it yourself here and maybe I didn't make a strong enough argument earlier. Essentially what I was trying to get at is this part you say about existential questioning, that science doesn't really deal with that and your totally right, and that's its inherent flaw imo. Science deals with the external world, yet it tries to attempt to fit everything, every personal experience, thought, emotion, action etc. into a nice, neat objective box when it can't. Just take this miami zombie guy everyone is freaking out about. His drug test comes back clean (except for pot, but what sort of ganja makes someone do THAT?), so there is no rational or scientific explanation for why this guy behaved the way he did. Science as a practice has no way of getting inside this person's subjective experience to see what the hell was going on with him.

You can explain exploding quasars, elementary particles, biological process, and a ton of other stuff via the scientific method. However, you cannot observe the inner workings of an individual which is totally a subjective (and very important) thing. Yet science would push you to believe that your emotions are nothing more than chemical processes at work, your thoughts are generated by a large organ in your head, etc.

What this does is steal away the soul of man. Science itself is not a bad thing whatsoever, in fact it has been one of if not THE most useful thing we've ever come up with, but it sadly has its limitations and with today's society so hell bent on material worth, the paradigm that has developed during this era is one that is very rigid in how it thinks reality works and does not offer much room for outside-the-box interpretations of its collected data.

Try getting a scientist to experiment with meditation, mind altering substances, yoga, or other subjective 'technologies', and a large percentage of them will scoff at you and brush you off as an irrational person. That stuff isn't real to them because it doesn't meet the objective paradigm. It's the current paradigm I was trying to make my arguement against, not the process of doing science itself.

As a scientist. I agree. I also try meditation, yoga, and other subjective technologies.

You gotta stop trying to judge science based on a few of it's SCIENTISTS. Science is science. It is not good, it is not bad. It is a method of exploring, sharing and reproducing results. There is literally nothing stopping you, me, or anyone else from coming up with something better, less limited, and perhaps spiritual. Problem is, it ends up losing the reproducible part and then becomes subjective and then is nothing like science, soo....the only rational thing to do is leave science behind and use philosophy as a guide if you want to explore these territories, and philosophy/logic can be great tools for picking up the path were science leaves off. J

BTW One last thought.

I am spiritual because of science not in spite of science.

 

[Tek]

Science isn't about existential questioning (for example science has no say whether everything we see is a part of a consistent illusion/matrix/virtual reality or not), but science is a method for finding the patterns inside this universe/illusion/virtual reality. Show me another way that is as or more reliable in finding these patterns and overcoming subjective bias (and open to falsifying the old more established theories)... I really doubt you can

You pretty much said it yourself here and maybe I didn't make a strong enough argument earlier. Essentially what I was trying to get at is this part you say about existential questioning, that science doesn't really deal with that and your totally right, and that's its inherent flaw imo. Science deals with the external world, yet it tries to attempt to fit everything, every personal experience, thought, emotion, action etc. into a nice, neat objective box when it can't. Just take this miami zombie guy everyone is freaking out about. His drug test comes back clean (except for pot, but what sort of ganja makes someone do THAT?), so there is no rational or scientific explanation for why this guy behaved the way he did. Science as a practice has no way of getting inside this person's subjective experience to see what the hell was going on with him.

You can explain exploding quasars, elementary particles, biological process, and a ton of other stuff via the scientific method. However, you cannot observe the inner workings of an individual which is totally a subjective (and very important) thing. Yet science would push you to believe that your emotions are nothing more than chemical processes at work, your thoughts are generated by a large organ in your head, etc.

What this does is steal away the soul of man. Science itself is not a bad thing whatsoever, in fact it has been one of if not THE most useful thing we've ever come up with, but it sadly has its limitations and with today's society so hell bent on material worth, the paradigm that has developed during this era is one that is very rigid in how it thinks reality works and does not offer much room for outside-the-box interpretations of its collected data.

Try getting a scientist to experiment with meditation, mind altering substances, yoga, or other subjective 'technologies', and a large percentage of them will scoff at you and brush you off as an irrational person. That stuff isn't real to them because it doesn't meet the objective paradigm. It's the current paradigm I was trying to make my arguement against, not the process of doing science itself.

As a scientist. I agree. I also try meditation, yoga, and other subjective technologies.

You gotta stop trying to judge science based on a few of it's SCIENTISTS. Science is science. It is not good, it is not bad. It is a method of exploring, sharing and reproducing results. There is literally nothing stopping you, me, or anyone else from coming up with something better, less limited, and perhaps spiritual. Problem is, it ends up losing the reproducible part and then becomes subjective and then is nothing like science, soo....the only rational thing to do is leave science behind and use philosophy as a guide if you want to explore these territories, and philosophy/logic can be great tools for picking up the path were science leaves off. J

BTW One last thought.

I am spiritual because of science not in spite of science.

Thank you. I am guilty of exactly what you state above; judging science on the view of the scientists that make the most noise in mainstream society and then placing a value judgment on the practice itself. This is an error on my part and I did try to make a distinction earlier that what I was arguing against is a materialist interpretation of the universe, not science itself, but what I ended up doing was arguing about science anyways and that wasn't the intent.

Your spirituality coming as a result of science is, imo, what a true scientist is. Thus my admiration for the late Carl Sagan. He became a scientist just because he looked out at nature and wondered. You have to admire that. You don't have to call it spirituality, but it doesn't take a very observant person to realize that the type of science Sagan believed in is not the type that is taught in most schools today.

 

[ayanami_rei13]

being spiritual because of science is a common delusion based upon the nature of logical thought and language. this was covered extensively by russel, wittgenstein et al. in the early part of last century.
embracing a bipolar logical/illogical worldview is called schizophrenia.

 

[proto-pax]

yall care to much.