How much can we trust science?

[cladking]

The ancient conception of everything was not divided into "physics or metaphysics" as they stated everything to be connected. The reason modern humans take something to be "metaphysical" is that they´re having troubles of interpreting and placing ancient texts and symbols in it´s correct context.

Native said: ↑
It is important to underline that any ancient astronomy was an embedded part of the cultural mythology which is much more than "just" noticing the scenario of the celestial objects and their motions.

Well, IMO lots of the ancient symbolic language CAN be interpreted when interpreting an actual symbolism and text in the corrrect astronomical and cosmological context.

Native said: ↑
In the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt, it was believed Nu and Naunet were responsible for the development and continued renewal of the primordial waters of the universe.

When focusing on the cosmological terms of "primordial"; "eternal" and infinite" in the Egyptian story of creation, I think you have to interpret "primordial waters" not just as "waters on the Earth flowing south and north" but more as in the modern term of "the gaseous clouds in cosmos", i.e. the Cosmic Ocean , quote:

"In ancient creation texts, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters".

IMO "Amun" is not "metaphysical" but represents the "watery-life-giving quality"

I believe their word "Amun" meant "reality itself". I believe we mistranslate it (it can not really be translated) as "so be it".

Any response would look like I don't agree with you but the reality is that while my opinion is "opposite" it is really just different sides of the exact same coin. It is impossible to separate myth from language from religion from science. From our perspective it merely appears these things are distinct.

I use the definition of "metaphysics" as the "basis of science".

 

[cladking]

I really don't know what can be deduced in 40,000 years of generations and generations of scientist where every individual is a scientist but population are low and far flung. This is not a simple question and it will take a long time to figure it out.

Of course, the same thing can be said about bacteria and viruses and microscopes. Until the optics was developed, the existence of these was simply not something that could be detected.

There is I believe ample evidence to know they had knowledge of unseen bacteria or viruses.

Consider as well that near sighted scientists could see tiny mites and the like and deduce that their parts were too small to see. We sneeze into tissues which launch millions of tiny disease carrying droplets into the air increasing the chances of infecting others. They said one should sneeze into the ground (like tefnut).

With all our knowledge and all our science we still do exactly the wrong thing through ritual and superstition. Ancient knowledge was shallow but it was always perfectly applicable to the real world.

 

[Native]

I believe their word "Amun" meant "reality itself". I believe we mistranslate it (it can not really be translated) as "so be it".

Any response would look like I don't agree with you but the reality is that while my opinion is "opposite" it is really just different sides of the exact same coin. It is impossible to separate myth from language from religion from science. From our perspective it merely appears these things are distinct.

I use the definition of "metaphysics" as the "basis of science".

Fair enough and fine with me

 

[Augustus]

1 scientist working accomplishes more then 1000 people on their knees praying.

On balance this is obviously true, but there is a not insignificant percentage of the time when it is untrue.

As well as the being the best tools we have to gain understanding of certain parts of the world around us, the sciences are also a major source of false information/anti-knowledge.

This anti-knowledge often cause tangible harms, and the act of creating it may be worse than doing nothing.

Also many scientists work on things that are not beneficial to society, from biological weapons to food additives to polluting chemicals to techniques to manipulate our thought or actions against our interests.

So while the sciences are obviously a net benefit for society, they do also cause a sizeable amount of harm.

 

[Yazata]

Given the current state of the replication crisis, how much can we trust science?

I think that scientists have probably always kind of had their thumbs on the scale, biasing what kind of research outcomes they produce. I suspect that they often favor results that conform with their personal beliefs, their career prospects or the interests of their patrons and funding sources.

That isn't exactly the same thing as the replication crisis, since even terrible research might be "replicated" by those sharing the same biases, those with an interest in those results being accepted. (Think tobacco research funded by tobacco companies. I have no problem with imagining them "replicating" each others' results.)

In the past, that kind of thing has been kind of self-correcting. If results are bad, then others will discover that fact and make it known.

But the self-correcting nature of science is threatened when adherence to certain research results becomes a condition of hiring and tenure. And I fear that we might be seeing that happening more and more.

Perhaps the best course of action for intelligent people on the street is to treat all claims of authority with a degree of skepticism. Just because a story in the press is prefaced by "Scientists say...!" doesn't mean that it's ex cathedra infallible and must be credulously accepted by everyone. We still have to keep our wits about us, retaining our common-sense critical thinking capacities, and be alert to the possibility that much of what we are told is bull****.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is I believe ample evidence to know they had knowledge of unseen bacteria or viruses.

Then why did bad humors and other wrong ideas persist? Bad air was also widely believed to cause disease.

So while the sciences are obviously a net benefit for society, they do also cause a sizeable amount of harm.

Science does nothing more than explain the natural world. Humans are the ones who apply these explanations, for benevolent uses to benefit the world, or malicious intent that unleashes horrors unknown. Science, for example, revealed to us the potential for nuclear energy. Something that has always been there, and science showed us what's going on. This could have stayed in the realms of energy and medicine and things good, but where some humans find science to do good others use science to do evil.
It's basically a tool. A hammer is not good or evil, benevolent or malevolent. It just is. It can be used to construct houses or take a life. That's not a fault of the hammer. It's the people using them to create buildings to extend and preserve life, and those using them to build buildings to destroy life.

 

[cladking]

Then why did bad humors and other wrong ideas persist? Bad air was also widely believed to cause disease.

We assume ancient people who left virtually no written record of events, history, or knowledge were just as ignorant and superstitious as people who came later and did leave a clear picture of their ignorance and beliefs. It is this assumption that is in error. Later people believed in bad mojo, evil gods, and bad air but earlier people had no beliefs at all and lacked even a single word that meant "belief" or any evidence of any type or sort that they thought like we do. They had no words that meant or implied they "thought" at all.

Myth didn't originate with the stinky footed bumpkins who came later. It originated in an Ancient Language that can not be translated because it shared all the attributes of the bee's waggle dance as communication. Ancient science underlies religion and myth, not silly superstition and total ignorance. Ancient science also underlies our vocabulary and Ancient Language is the way we are born thinking before we must unlearn it in order to acquire modern language. It's this underlayment of language and the way our brain are physically organized that leads many of us to believe that something has been lost, that a God must exist, or that there is something more to existence than science and its near complete ignorance; a science that doesn't even attempt to define consciousness and omits the individual from all considerations. Despite the fact that all life, all thought, and all consciousness are individual science ignores him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We assume ancient people who left virtually no written record of events, history, or knowledge were just as ignorant and superstitious as people who came later and did leave a clear picture of their ignorance and beliefs.

Bad humors persisted up into the Englightment era. Some of the Founding Fathers were said to have had them. That's not ancient. Miasma theory was replaced during the mid 19th century. Again, this was not ancient just ancient people.

It originated in an Ancient Language that can not be translated

And yet you don't name this language or provide an origins of it.

Ancient science also underlies our vocabulary and Ancient Language is the way we are born thinking before we must unlearn it in order to acquire modern language.

We know no language until we learn our primary language, which will be a modern language.

It's this underlayment of language and the way our brain are physically organized that leads many of us to believe that something has been lost, that a God must exist,

This is why science is inherently better. It is expected you support such a claim or it doesn't fly. Here you make claims of humanity, of our brains, and our cognition. You provide not an ounce of supporting evidence. If you provide no evidence to assess, then your claim is equally valid as claiming there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

a science that doesn't even attempt to define consciousness and omits the individual from all considerations. Despite the fact that all life, all thought, and all consciousness are individual science ignores him.

That is utter bull. Science has advanced the cause of the individual by affirming mental illness, individual experiences and upbringing shaping us, genetics molding us, and of course we are all our own individual people. Modern science especially is very good at this. It's fascinating enough we can look at brain such as mine in an imaging machine and see where it is formed slightly different and functions in different ways than normal brains, which we would expect in someone who has Asperger's. Such a thing is tremendously powerful as confirms that's just who I am. Without this, people are expected to rigidly conform. Such as how left-handed people were often forced to assimilate to using their left hand. But we know because of science that is silly, absurd, and just not worth the effort. Let them be lefties, says science.

 

[Augustus]

Science does nothing more than explain the natural world. Humans are the ones who apply these explanations, for benevolent uses to benefit the world, or malicious intent that unleashes horrors unknown. Science, for example, revealed to us the potential for nuclear energy. Something that has always been there, and science showed us what's going on. This could have stayed in the realms of energy and medicine and things good, but where some humans find science to do good others use science to do evil.
It's basically a tool. A hammer is not good or evil, benevolent or malevolent. It just is. It can be used to construct houses or take a life. That's not a fault of the hammer. It's the people using them to create buildings to extend and preserve life, and those using them to build buildings to destroy life.

It's not about 'fault' it's about the impact it has in the real world. I understand your point, but, imo, we shouldn't put 'science' on a pedestal and treat it as a purely normative abstraction: it is something that exists and has wide reaching effects that we can observe.

Also, the comment I was addressing was specifically about the actions of scientists, and scientists often create things that were not always there in the natural world in terms of both 'things' and ideas.

Politics is just a means of organising society; it has positive and negative effects. It helps to note them both.

Religions and ideologies are just methods of constructing meaning in a world which has none; they positive and negative effects. It helps to note them both.

etc.

 

[cladking]

Bad humors persisted up into the Englightment era. Some of the Founding Fathers were said to have had them. That's not ancient. Miasma theory was replaced during the mid 19th century. Again, this was not ancient just ancient people.

You are assuming human progress has been linear. There is no evidence for this. There was a "golden age" where people didn't think like us and had a different kind of science. When that golden age ended science was utterly lost as well as the means to practice science and ONLY ancient technology and vocabulary survived.

We, all of us, are highly superstitious but ancient people up till 2000 BC were not.

And yet you don't name this language or provide an origins of it.

I most assuredly did name it. It was "Ancient Language" and was a universal human language; all humans spoke it and its mutually intelligible dialects. It was a verbal manifestation of the human brain. As math is quantified logic the brain is manifested logic and Ancient Language was the verbalization of this logic. It most probably originated in a mutation 40,000 years ago.

We know no language until we learn our primary language, which will be a modern language.

So your contention is that prairie dogs can't communicate because they can't speak English!

Researcher Decodes Prairie Dog Language, Discovers They've Been Talking About Us

You obviously are mistaken. Bees waggle and beavers build without any primary language.

then your claim is equally valid as claiming there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

There is nothing but evidence. We merely interpret it all away.

The irony is that there is a pot of gold at the end of "the" rainbow.

But we know because of science that is silly, absurd, and just not worth the effort.

All people are different and all people with aspergers are different.

Curiously enough all modern people are exactly alike in that they build models of reality and compare sensory input top them calling this process "thinking". No ancient person did this because ancient people didn't build models but adjusted their thought to reflect reality just like a bee or a beaver. This is simply PROVEN by the fact they didn't use induction, experience "thought" or have any beliefs at all.

Science is most certainly not "silly". What is silly is most peoples understanding of science and almost everyone's belief that we know virtually everything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are assuming human progress has been linear.

I never claimed that.

There was a "golden age" where people didn't think like us and had a different kind of science.

Evidence?

I most assuredly did name it. It was "Ancient Language" and was a universal human language;

Where is the evidence, because as far as we can tell this just is not supported by what we know of human languages.

So your contention is that prairie dogs can't communicate because they can't speak English!

I never claimed such. I said we do not know any language at all until we learn one. Perhaps you need to read more carefully.

There is nothing but evidence. We merely interpret it all away.

There is no evidence for this pot of gold. There is no evidence of this "ancient language."

Science is most certainly not "silly".

The idea that science ignores the individual is what I am calling silly.

almost everyone's belief that we know virtually everything.

That's rather silly as well because the idea we know nothing is not ascribed to by any serious thinker, philosopher, or scientists. An arrogant and highly ethnocentric mind is the only way it is possible to believe in such a fantasy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Religions and ideologies are just methods of constructing meaning in a world which has none; they positive and negative effects. It helps to note them both.

Religion has a very nasty habit of creating others and subjugating them. Women are beneath men, other religions pay a tax, people are made "untouchable," "divine rights" end the discussion. It has a history of explicitly commanding people to kill certain types of people, such as homosexuals, blasphemers, pagans, witches, apostates, and those who worship other gods. This isn't a misuse of the religion, it comes straight from the pages of the religion's holy text.
This is not like science things such as Ohm's Law and Watt's Law are discovered, as natural laws of the natural world that just exist, and then used by humans who take these and create means to weaponize electricity and turn it fatal. There is no command to kill, no command to harvest, no command to use. We discovered these principles, and humans took it upon themselves to use these principles to kill.

 

[Augustus]

Religion has a very nasty habit of creating others and subjugating them. Women are beneath men, other religions pay a tax, people are made "untouchable," "divine rights" end the discussion. It has a history of explicitly commanding people to kill certain types of people, such as homosexuals, blasphemers, pagans, witches, apostates, and those who worship other gods. This isn't a misuse of the religion, it comes straight from the pages of the religion's holy text.
This is not like science things such as Ohm's Law and Watt's Law are discovered, as natural laws of the natural world that just exist, and then used by humans who take these and create means to weaponize electricity and turn it fatal. There is no command to kill, no command to harvest, no command to use. We discovered these principles, and humans took it upon themselves to use these principles to kill.

Science can also create 'objective' truths that cause great harms.

Scientific racialist theories, eugenics, homosexuality as a 'mental illness', etc. weren't 'misuses' of science they were mainstream 'objective' concepts that influenced the world in a negative manner.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Science can also create 'objective' truths that cause great harms.

Humans have to create those. Genetics and biology are what they are. People have to decide certain people are unworthy and twist eugenics into forced sterilization and oppression. Homosexuality as a mental disorder didn't have solid evidence to support it, and was discarded. Racial theories are not supported by facts, but only speculations passed down from cultures and times that did not have the means or abilities to test these claims and further investigate them.
And, no, science does not create truths or proofs. It helps us to objectively understand the world, but proofs and such things are the realm of math. Science is observations and explanations and it uses math to give us formulae to support the explanations. None of that is telling us what to do with it.

 

[cladking]

Where is the evidence, because as far as we can tell this just is not supported by what we know of human languages.

You're going to have to read my posts.

I can cite all sorts and kinds of physical evidence but if you don't discuss what has already been cited then you will ignore anything else as well. Frankly, I'm a little uncomfortable taking this conversation much further in this direction anyway so would refer you to this;

Ancient Reality

I never claimed such. I said we do not know any language at all until we learn one. Perhaps you need to read more carefully.

What evidence do you have for this?

Does a bee learn language in the queen's bee's knees?

There is no evidence of this "ancient language."

Correct. There is only writing in a language that has no words for induction, "thought, or "belief".

The idea that science ignores the individual is what I am calling silly.

How did they differentiate you from other individuals they labeled "aspergers"? What specific differences exist between your consciousness and the underlying stucture that causes it and another individual?

That's rather silly as well because the idea we know nothing is not ascribed to by any serious thinker, philosopher, or scientists.

More's the pity.

Meanwhile try googling what causes gravity or how the various forces are interrelated.

There is a virtually infinitely larger body of what we don't know than what we do know which I interpret as meaning we know virtually nothing. Just because there is far more to know than anyone can even format hardly means we know much of anything at all.

Everything is perspective and from where I sit I see virtually total ignorance and a different way to think that is employed by all life except modern humans. Animals see what they know and understand while people today see what we believe and we each believe that individually and collectively we know everything.

 

[Milton Platt]

If you are unaware science is considered to be in a state of crisis. Replication is one of the foundations of science, but scientists are having problems reproducing results.

Here is an article about it, but you can also Google the replication crisis if you want more information.

In this survey of 1500 scientist they found



1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility


There have been a number of studies on this replication crisis, so feel free to investigate more if you like.

Given the current state of the replication crisis, how much can we trust science?

What system do you propose in it's place?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're going to have to read my posts.

I can cite all sorts and kinds of physical evidence but if you don't discuss what has already been cited then you will ignore anything else as well. Frankly, I'm a little uncomfortable taking this conversation much further in this direction anyway so would refer you to this;

Ancient Reality

That provides much evidence. And evidence is necessary or I will have reason to dismiss your claims.

What evidence do you have for this?

No one is born knowing how to speak a language. We know this because feral children will not acquire a language and children will only know the languages they are taught. We are born to acquire language, but we just don't yet know any of them when we are born.

Does a bee learn language in the queen's bee's knees?

I have not studied bees enough to answer this question.

Correct. There is only writing in a language that has no words for induction, "thought, or "belief".

That's not evidence of your alleged language.

How did they differentiate you from other individuals they labeled "aspergers"?

They treat me as I am with regard to how I am. It's known we aren't carbon copies of each other.

What specific differences exist between your consciousness and the underlying stucture that causes it and another individual?

Of the general traits, we have to "intellectualize," or "take detours" for empathy, we tend to interpret things literally, it's not unusual if we have senses far more sensitive than the average person, we are prone to being very short, specific, blunt and straight to the point, we are often known for being committed to evidence and facts, having large vocabularies, and numerous other traits we commonly share.

More's the pity.

False, as anyone who has seriously picked up the pursuit of knowledge knows that in the end, knowing more only serves to show us we know less than we did before. For every question answered, a dozen more questions are asked.

 

[cladking]

No one is born knowing how to speak a language. We know this because feral children will not acquire a language and children will only know the languages they are taught. We are born to acquire language, but we just don't yet know any of them when we are born.

You're talking apples and oranges. No bee is born speaking fluent Bee and no child has ever been born speaking fluent Human (or English). A bee is hatched with the genetic and structural ability to learn Bee. Bee was invented based on the wiring and thinking of a bee. Babies babel because they are seeking reinforcement of their language but no parent today knows that language. The baby must unlearn the structure and basics of Ancient Language in order to learn English. They still grow billions of new connections in the brain at two years of age to acquire Ancient Language but since it is not forthcoming from their parents almost all of these connections fall into disuse.

I have not studied bees enough to answer this question.

The answer is "no". Exactly how they learn Bee is unknown and until we learn Bee as well as the nature of consciousness there is no chance we will ever know.

They treat me as I am with regard to how I am.

So they know everything about you but they still can't even define consciousness!!!

That's not evidence of your alleged language.

Of what do you believe it is evidence? How could we communicate the simplest ideas without such words?

Of the general traits, we have to "intellectualize," or "take detours" for empathy, we tend to interpret things literally, it's not unusual if we have senses far more sensitive than the average person, we are prone to being very short, specific, blunt and straight to the point, we are often known for being committed to evidence and facts, having large vocabularies, and numerous other traits we commonly share.

I was actually referring to you specifically and your specific anatomical structures.

In addition to taking things literally and detouring empathy you can also teach yourself to read minds. One can get quite good at it.

False, as anyone who has seriously picked up the pursuit of knowledge knows that in the end, knowing more only serves to show us we know less than we did before. For every question answered, a dozen more questions are asked.

It sounds like you're agreeing with me. If the more we learn the less we know then how can we ever know anything at all?

 

[cladking]

Science can also create 'objective' truths that cause great harms.

Scientific racialist theories, eugenics, homosexuality as a 'mental illness', etc. weren't 'misuses' of science they were mainstream 'objective' concepts that influenced the world in a negative manner.

Throw in the nonsense called "survival of the fittest" and the concept we aren't responsible because we're a puppet of the id/ ego and you have 30,000,000 murders in the 20th century alone. This doesn't even include the billions of wasted and shortened lives of those who weren't "fit enough" to lift themselves from poverty and "the man's" heel.

So far this new century is shaping up to be much worse but we'll kill people while being politically correct now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It sounds like you're agreeing with me. I

If there is one take away, I do not agree with you.