The Reason Science Is Flawed

[Mock Turtle]

Science is flawed because it makes the false assumption that there is a objective reality for it to study. If there is no observer there is no reality.

Whatever assumptions are made, science seems demonstrably successful at mapping reality such that the products of such are useful for us, just as our thinking tends towards mapping reality, and where this too can be useful - or not, as the case may be. I'd like to see some demonstrations of non-science that match science.

If you began to take back your power and recognize your true spiritual nature then you would stop helping to co-create all the horrors on this planet like war.

I've no intention of starting wars, or of harming others. How we might all work to make life on Earth better for humans, all other life, and for the planet itself, I doubt will come from spirituality or from religions, unless again this can be demonstrated.

 

[exchemist]

It is a dream, but dreams do not occur in your head. Dreams are your recollections of the travels of your energy body. Most of what you do you don't even remember did you know that you have on average 5-10 dreams a night, but you would be lucky to remember even 1 of them.

How do you know that this here isn't a dream? The dreams I have are far more realistic than this.

For all the lovers of science your hero Einstein said that reality is just a persistent illusion.

Wrong. Einstein said nothing of the sort.

He said the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent illusion, in the context of comforting the widow of a colleague who had just died: Quoting Einstein: Einstein and Michele Besso

If you are going to start quoting scientists (which seems odd, in view of your contempt for science), you might at least quote them correctly.

 

[Deidre]

Oh? For example?

This thread and others like it, would be examples. We tend to think that science competes with religion, but it doesn't. If we think it does though, then it will. Much is lost in our flawed perceptions, if you ask me.

 

[ppp]

This thread and others like it, would be examples. We tend to think that science competes with religion, but it doesn't. If we think it does though, then it will. Much is lost in our flawed perceptions, if you ask me.

We once looked to religion to answer questions about the nature of the world. We invented science and found that it is a much more reliable tool for that purpose. Science outcompeted religion. I don't see the flaw in that perception.

 

[Audie]

Yep. Our understanding of science is flawed, not science itself. How one applies science, and compares it to spiritual beliefs, are what is flawed.

This is what we call deepity.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I never told anybody what they can or can't experience.

Ahem...

On the other hand a soul is what you are and you can experience it for yourself.

Anyway...

I am not doing the same as religion I seek to control and exploit nobody. I am simple speaking the truth.

You say have the truth. You're shoving it down people's throats. And then you say you're not doing the same thing as religion. That's cute.

I am here to talk about your soul. Now I will share personal experiences that I have had if somebody asks me, but I am here to talk about your soul because most people are fish that forget they can swim and birds that forgot they can fly. You are infinitely more powerful than you know and directly connected to the source of all things the 1 creative mind source consciousness.

Please do us a favor and talk about your soul instead of mine or that of others. You've already demonstrated that you know nothing about me, let alone my "soul." I doubt you know any more about anyone else here or their "souls."

 

[halbhh]

assumption that there is an objective reality to study and observe. The truth is that reality is subjective. You are a powerful energetic consciousness that creates your subjective reality this is why you are constantly at the center of your universe.

Both. They are both true: there is an objective reality outside of our awareness (independent of whether we are aware of it), and also simultaneously our perceptions and views are necessarily subjective. Both. Science, when done the best way, tries to create situations or methods where one's subjective views don't affect the observations, and where the observations decide which of the competing hypotheses (if any) survive another day.

Of course that is often hard to do well, and typically there is only partial success. But there is some real success and here's how one can see so:

Einstein's General Relativity predicted a bending of the path of light by gravity that was different than the classical prediction and also had never been observed, and was not expected.

This completely unexpected result about something never before observed proved out to be correct, when a few years later a solar eclipse made the first real test possible.

To discover or hypothesize some possible principles of how nature works, and then extrapolate the consequences of those ideas, including never before observed nor expected phenomena, and then have the unique predictions proven correct, is a kind of proof both that there is an objective reality (that preexists our understanding), and also that we can discover transforms (versions/representations) that align with that objective reality.

 

[Deidre]

We once looked to religion to answer questions about the nature of the world. We invented science and found that it is a much more reliable tool for that purpose. Science outcompeted religion. I don't see the flaw in that perception.

Science and religion answer different questions, though. Science isn’t able to answer existential questions, at least to me, it can’t.

 

[ppp]

Science and religion answer different questions, though. Science isn’t able to answer existential questions, at least to me, it can’t.

And yet religions do attempt to answer questions about the universe in which we find ourselves. From the age of the earth, to claims about what to do for sicknesses and mental health, to claims that one or more deities exist in reality, or that there are souls, spirits, elementals, demons, whatever. We still have religions, such as Christianity, trying to attach epilepsy to demon possession.

Yes, religions do attempt to tell me what my existential purpose is. And they do so based upon what they claim my nature to be be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I told you if you want proof then you can do these things yourself. If you don't believe me there are hundreds of thousands of people that have shared their personal experiences with astral projection and lucid dreaming.

Sorry that is pure BS. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. The burden is not upon me to find "proof". Your foolish example does not work because if it does not work for one you will only claim one did not try hard enough or do it right.

Without a proper test you do not have reliable evidence. All you have are stories of deluded people. Try to think rationally. What reasonable test could refute your claims? If you cannot think of one then you do not have reliable evidence for your beliefs.

 

[blü 2]

There is no basis for your claim science is not a source of proof to me.

This brings us to the question which the Pilate story has made famous ─ what is truth?

I use the "correspondence" definition ─ that truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. Thus truth answers to a test as objective as we can make it.

What definition of truth do you use? What objective test for truth does it provide?

Or does it leave you free to make up whatever you like?

I know from first hand experience that consciousness is separate from the brain.

Or, you have the knack of inducing dissociative experiences ─ "out-of-body experiences" ─ pretty much when you want.

But you know they're not real, because you never return from them with new remote knowledge of reality. So you make the untenable claim that there's no such thing as objective reality ─ all the time fatally contradicting yourself by conducting this thread in conversation with all these real people including me.

If you're right and there's no such thing as the world external to the self (objective reality / nature / the realm of the physical sciences &c) then you're just talking to yourself, inventing us and our answers, pure solipsism.

Or else ─ as your conduct necessarily implies ─ we do exist outside of your imagination, there really is a world external to the self ─ objective reality ─ and you're simply but fundamentally mistaken.

Or else ─ if you're joking ─ you're not nearly funny enough.

If you would like to have the same experiences as me you can do so

But that's just dreaming. We real people tend to put a real value on reality. And I prefer to alter my mood with a fine scotch or bourbon or (my first love) rum ─ none of which I have to make up, because they're real.

Memory is not stored in the brain, the brain

Where is your memory stored, and how can I access it?

That's your problem, you think there should be a test for everything and if you can't test something you just deny it.

That's certainly applicable in this case ─ the correctness of extraordinary claims must be demonstrated to an extraordinary degree, but you have only words and dreams; you fail all tests.

Which brings us back to the test you use for truth.

 

[Deidre]

And yet religions do attempt to answer questions about the universe in which we find ourselves. From the age of the earth, to claims about what to do for sicknesses and mental health, to claims that one or more deities exist in reality, or that there are souls, spirits, elementals, demons, whatever. We still have religions, such as Christianity, trying to attach epilepsy to demon possession.

Yes, religions do attempt to tell me what my existential purpose is. And they do so based upon what they claim my nature to be be.

I don’t think that Christianity as a rule dismisses science, but there are some Christians (or those labeling themselves as such) who offer misinformation.

I’m a believer but my belief in God doesn’t cause me to negate scientific discoveries. The Bible isn’t as much of an enemy of science as one might think.

 

[ppp]

I don’t think that Christianity as a rule dismisses science, but there are some Christians (or those labeling themselves as such) who offer misinformation.

And yet we have large sects of Christians who are young earth creationists, dismissing biology, geology, archeology, cosmology and paleontology. (40+% if you are in the United States) Christians dismissing the efficacy of blood transfusion or contraception. Christians claiming that there was a global flood and a tower of Babel language event. Not to mention the religious claims about race and gender and morality.

So yeah. While all Christians do not dismiss all science, those "alls" are pretty damning.

I’m a believer but my belief in God doesn’t cause me to negate scientific discoveries. The Bible isn’t as much of an enemy of science as one might think.

The Bible is just a book. Nothing more. Books are not enemies or friends; save in a metaphorical sense. But that book is strewn with both false and undemonstrated claims about reality.

 

[halbhh]

I don’t think that Christianity as a rule dismisses science, but there are some Christians (or those labeling themselves as such) who offer misinformation.

I’m a believer but my belief in God doesn’t cause me to negate scientific discoveries. The Bible isn’t as much of an enemy of science as one might think.

That's entirely correct. We often tend to see these endless debates by fundamentalist style ideologues on both sides going at each other endlessly, both sides using the same simplistic concrete interpretation that one wouldn't even have if they could just read with listening (so it could become possible to begin to get hints the real meanings in some of the parable-like stories that have a clearly parable-like feeling to them).

 

[Quintessence]

Nobody told me this I know how to think for myself. All you have to do is start researching the roots of religion to see that everything comes from the same ancient texts in the middle east.

No. No, they really, really don't. Not even remotely. I don't think you've done much researching about the "roots of religion" at all. I would say that's a matter of fact, but you don't seem to have the best grasp of what a fact is, so... just nevermind. Have a nice... life? Do you believe you have one of those? Eh...

 

[exchemist]

I don’t think that Christianity as a rule dismisses science, but there are some Christians (or those labeling themselves as such) who offer misinformation.

I’m a believer but my belief in God doesn’t cause me to negate scientific discoveries. The Bible isn’t as much of an enemy of science as one might think.

Agreed. It is only an enemy of science if one reads it literally, which religious scholars have not done for centuries, starting with Origen in ~200AD.

 

[tas8831]

To deny your spiritual nature is like a fish denying that it comes from the water. Sad and ridiculous at the same time. Because you deny your true nature you give your creative powers to others who manipulate you into creating a reality that doesn't benefit you, but benefits them...

 

[tas8831]

Dreaming is a form of astral projection

No it isn't.

 

[night912]

Science is fundamentally flawed because it's operating off the flawed assumption that there is an objective reality to study and observe. The truth is that reality is subjective. You are a powerful energetic consciousness that creates your subjective reality this is why you are constantly at the center of your universe. The brain does not create consciousness it merely acts as a filter for it.

For those that do not believe in spiritual matters, I challenge you to explore your spiritual nature. You don't have to take my word on anything you can all go out of body quite easily and that is all the proof you will ever need. Dreaming is a form of unconscious astral projection, but you can turn your dreams into lucid dreams. Anyone that does not believe in a soul or an energy body you can astral project and experience it for yourself in fact you do this every night even if you don't remember your dreams....

W.I.L.D. (wake induced lucid dream) and W.B.T.S. (wake back to sleep) are just some of the methods you can use to take control of your energy body (dream body)(soul). These scientific minded people on here are always demanding proof for a soul, well what are you waiting for go try these methods and report your findings back here. I guarantee that anyone can get out of body in just a couple weeks of trying sometimes only takes a few days depends on your determination.

To deny your spiritual nature is like a fish denying that it comes from the water. Sad and ridiculous at the same time. Because you deny your true nature you give your creative powers to others who manipulate you into creating a reality that doesn't benefit you, but benefits them...

Your reasoning for a subjective reality is flawed. Suppose that what you said about me being an energetic consciousness and can do whatever I will. That means that the only thing that exists is me. So the real reality is objective. Even though I can do whatever, that is still an objective reality because I'm still bound to the reality of being capable of doing anything.

And for your second part, been there done that. I've had experiences of what is described as an out of body experience. But the question is, was that experience just a thought that my physical brain conjured up? How would I tell the difference between my consciousness actually leaving my physical body or the experience just being my physical brain imagining the whole thing. The only experiment I can think of doing to test this is to have my consciousness leave my physical body and then I being independent of the brain, I must destroy my physical brain. Once that's done, if the brain is indeed just a filter, I, my consciousness, would have to still exist. That proves that I am independent of my physical body, or does it? What if all of that was just part of my physical brain making me think that it really did happen. And if I was to physically commit suicide, and that action did end my consciousness, how would I even know what happened. If I no longer exist, then there's nothing that is left of me to even ponder that very idea.

 

[rational experiences]

First and origin as consciousness in observation is self a human owning highest life form as a healthy human.

Then science can ask......so why are other humans not healthy.

Quoting basic observation before egotism and want involving lifestyle that is fake.

Observation survival for self human first.

Second any condition that supports survival.

When you think by intention in thinking if you quote when what supports you did not exist. Motivation in conscious choice proves a confession process is stated.

You virtually advise your own conscious self the intentions of your thinking.

Science said when earth never existed. That confession.