Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

[TagliatelliMonster]

No skeptic is free of bias. The truths of science, just like the truths of religion, are instantly defiled when they come into contact with Man.

It's funny because the whole purpose and reason for the scientific method, is to avoid as much of "man" bias and opinion as possible.

It was developed specifically to be as free as possible from human bias. So that peers would NOT have to "just believe" anyone.

I would love it if the truth of science and religion were left pure and whole, but rather than living in "fantasyland" I'm accepting the reality of this life.

The truths that science reveals are independently verifiable.
The truths that religion reveals has to be "just believed".

That's the difference between science and religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In materialism, everything is a manifestation of matter. In Eastern thought, everything is a manifestation of consciousness.

I don't know of a single thing that demonstrably exists that isn't based in physical reality.

You are most welcome to point me to such a thing though.

Until then I see no reason to believe that non-physical things are capable of manifestation (or existing at all).

 

[cladking]

But scientists need to be in both.

Nothing from science is relevant to real leadership.

Obviously leaders need scientific advisors so they know of pending new advances and to have some explanation of current events that are mostly quantifiable but for the main part the "science" that is applied top politics is "Look and See Science" that isn't even true much less applicable. Most "science" that creeps into politics isn't "science" at all, it's justification for killing or stealing. It's used to enrich ADM and not the general weal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no "refuge behind science" because science is a process and means toward knowledge. There is nothing at all concrete behind which to shelter but most skeptics believe that science is a concrete fact that will protect them from ignorance and storms. They don't understand what science is or what it means. Even many scientists haven't a ghost of a clue of what they know and what they believe.

People, skeptics mostly, make broad assumptions and extrapolations and then build models from these right amid the experimental models which they often don't understand. In a sea of knowledge and science they are dying of thirst. They see only the mirages of what they are told are real and certain but they can't feel the rising tide of facts and logic that dispute what they take as reality.

Vague wordsalad is all I'm seeing here.

True skepticism is good just like true faith is good

Those things are in direct contradiction with eachother.

Faith is about "just believing" things.
Scepticism is the exact opposite.

But most "skeptics" on the net are no more skeptical than the lake in its bed.

Another random nonsense one-liner.

 

[cladking]

What do you mean?

"There was a time when "skeptic" meant someone who thinks for himself and accepts nothing at face value.

But in the last half a century it has come to mean someone who accepts the status quo and all current "knowledge" without thought or reflection."

I'm not sure what's tripping you up.

When I was a boy "skeptic" referred to individuals who didn't believe what they were told. The word applied to almost every scientist in the world. But now 99+% of climate "scientists" believe in global warming and have no problem with politicians using the "science" to enrich themselves and exacerbate the problems and CO2 production. Some people even believe the oceans are rising but politicians force the taxpayers to pay the flood insurance to build power plants on the beach!!! "Scientists" don't have a problem with this nor with the lack of empirical evidence for warming or rising oceans. Hell, most of them can't even count "ice caps" right.

There are no longer many skeptics. Everyone has bought into the magic of science and its handmaiden, technology, that proves we are smart. ...Well... ...everyone's smart except the dimwits who don't believe in science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People all believe they are 'intelligent". Everyone thinks they understand science and its models as well as the experiments that generate them.

Where are you getting all this stuff?
I can assure you that just about everybody here that would identify as a sceptic will have no problem at all mentioning plenty of scientific things that they do not understand at all.

I'm one of them. Quantum mechanics, for example. I wouldn't be able to interpret those equations, or even only tell what the various variables stand for, if my life depended on it.

What the heck are you talking about? Or who the heck are you talking about?

The reality is none of these things are true.

Which things? What are you talking about?

The ability to learn from the insights and experiments of the past have nothing to do with what we call "intelligence" largely because no such thing exists. It is a function of language and not some imaginary attribute of the human mind. "intelligence" is an event and not a condition. The proof is all around us but we choose not to see it.

You make no sense at all.
I'ld say Stephen Hawking is way more intelligent then I am. So is Bill Gates. We even have standardised tests to test for that. It's called an IQ test.

That people do not understand science is patently obvious. All you have to do is listen to what they say, do, and believe. Half of aviation engineers believe a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt moving the opposite direction. Even 3% of physicists miss the correct answer. Some of this is lack of care or playing devil's advocate but many miss it because they can't hold all the relevant parameters in mind and maintain a single frame of reference. Many don't really understand the nature of a wheel.

So because nobody holds ALL human knowledge, nobody knows anything?

Nowhere is the lack of understanding of science more pronounced than among people who claim to be "skeptics" on the net. They have some idea of what reality is and they can't be dissuaded from it regardless of how wrong they are.

Who are these people? Who are you talking about? Why are you being so vague and so generalising?

Without an understanding of metaphysics an understanding of science is impossible.

Let's just ignore all evidence to the contrary, ey?

It is not true for any other life form which don't use abstractions and experiment. Any beaver can invent a new way to build dams.

I'll bet you a bazillion dollars that no beaver will ever invent plastic dams.
Or use his dams to generate electricity to power his hole and provide it with a central heating system and cable TV.

Very few humans have any chance at discovering the unified field theory and if one does it will be the result of an insight and not because they are "smarter" than everyone else.

You should compare the average IQ of accomplished theoretical physicists with the average IQ of the rest of the population.


I'm actually not even aware of a single theoretical physicist that doesn't qualify, or at least comes very close to qualifying, to the level of "genius" in terms of IQ.

 

[cladking]

Vague wordsalad is all I'm seeing here.

It looks as clear as the last post you quote. Maybe try reading it again without assuming it's nonsense BEFORE you start.

Those things are in direct contradiction with eachother.

So I wasted my time defining a word for you.

Try a dictionary. One of the meanings is the same as it used to be.

Faith is about "just believing" things.

I believe ALL BELIEFS are superstition. You believe in science and most individuals are better off believing in God or Gods. It not only provides a moral compass but allows them to admit (and appreciate) their own ignorance.

Another random nonsense one-liner.

You have no clue. You believe you and human kind knows everything so there are right answers and wrong answers. "Science" is the only answer for you and "God" is the wrong answer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You essentially believe gravity is understood because everything falls straight down.

No. Just..... no.

You should really stop with this pretending to be a mindreader, because you truelly suck at mindreading.

 

[cladking]

You should compare the average IQ of accomplished theoretical physicists with the average IQ of the rest of the population.

I know you will never understand this but the "average physicist" has no intelligence at all and never had an idea of any sort.

Only individuals have ideas and can contribute to art, science, or other human advancement. 3% of physicists think a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt but this doesn't mean they are stupid, nor does it mean the others are intelligent. On average these 3% might be a little less likely to invent the unified field theory or an experiment to "prove" it. But these 3% are much more likely to do it than most theologians or Egyptologists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know you will never understand this but the "average physicist" has no intelligence at all and never had an idea of any sort.

You are correct, I don't understand that.
It seems you are using the world "intelligent" in a completely different way then just about everybody else.

Einstein and Hawking aren't "intelligent", ha?

Owkay then.

Only individuals have ideas and can contribute to art, science, or other human advancement. 3% of physicists think a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt but this doesn't mean they are stupid, nor does it mean the others are intelligent. On average these 3% might be a little less likely to invent the unified field theory or an experiment to "prove" it. But these 3% are much more likely to do it than most theologians or Egyptologists.

Whatever man.

 

[cladking]

Einstein and Hawking aren't "intelligent", ha?

Einstein was a skeptic in the old sense of the word.
People who can see reality only in terms of Einstein's work are believers.

True "skeptics" can build on the work of previous giants but they can also imagine a world where any specific "fact" is wrong. Perhaps the equations that reflect reality contain variables we can't imagine yet or reality can not be reduced to equations at all. It's entirely possible that the logic that "governs" reality will forever be beyond out ken or is incompatible with any mathematics we can devise and/ or manipulate. Yet almost every single so called skeptic on the net has every answer or knows exactly where to look for them. They believe that wiki and google has every answer despite the fact they aren't even artificially intelligent.

Perhaps you'll understand this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Einstein was a skeptic in the old sense of the word.
People who can see reality only in terms of Einstein's work are believers.

True "skeptics" can build on the work of previous giants but they can also imagine a world where any specific "fact" is wrong. Perhaps the equations that reflect reality contain variables we can't imagine yet or reality can not be reduced to equations at all. It's entirely possible that the logic that "governs" reality will forever be beyond out ken or is incompatible with any mathematics we can devise and/ or manipulate. Yet almost every single so called skeptic on the net has every answer or knows exactly where to look for them. They believe that wiki and google has every answer despite the fact they aren't even artificially intelligent.

Perhaps you'll understand this.

I understand that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and don't mind raping words in the process.

 

[cladking]

I understand that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and don't mind raping words in the process.

Are "skeptics defenders of science and reason"?

NO! Modern skeptics are believers in science as a religion. They are defenders of "Look and See Science" and anyone else who claims his work is "science" as determined by "Peers".

More accurately most internet skeptics don't really understand much science at all and merely use wiki and google to tell them their "truth".


It is the "skeptics" who are raping words and the one that has been most molested is the word "skeptic" itself. This word has been turned upside down and inside out. It no longer has much meaning at all (or at least not much utility).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This word has been turned upside down and inside out. It no longer has much meaning at all (or at least not much utility).

Especially after your ramblings.

 

[cladking]

Especially after your ramblings.

You can still use it to mean whatever you want.

Everyone has a different definition for every word anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can still use it to mean whatever you want.

No, I like to use words correctly. It makes communication easier.

Everyone has a different definition for every word anyway.

That explains some things.

 

[cladking]

No, I like to use words correctly. It makes communication easier.



That explains some things.

OK.

So if everyone were exactly like you (perfect) then chinese telephone wouldn't work. Good to know how special you might just be.