Science

[Orias]

I'm not a typical scientist though. I'm a magician as well. I can actually use science to aid magic.

Thus is the reason this conversation continues.

The two things are not exclusive.

Exactly, a point I have been meaning to conclude.

I agree with most of what you're saying...I think. I can barely understand you.

Well tell me what you are struggling to understand. I like to throw in a lot of points that may seem confusing, but thats just because I need to get them out to break them down. So I am glad you have been bearing with me, it is a process for the both of us.

I like to break things down, but you have to do it so much in every category to advance, when you break down one thing more than another it can be difficult to retain balance. Of course though, I have been making the error of not taking more time to get out a weeks worth of thoughts.

When you have balance, you see and manifest in positions that others are not able to. It is easier to attain balance within the self, it is harder to show other people.

But you're talking about where the bias is coming from, while I'm asking what the bias is. When you've gotten closest to saying what the bias really is, you've betrayed yourself as being pretty ignorant about it. That's ok, because I don't really know what the bias is either.

You think science majorly excludes spirituality?

My invitation for an experiment was really addressed to everyone and was inspired by "doors of perception" in his first reponse to this thread.

Alright here is a good one.

Try and look at things from a more psychological and sociological point of view, and think of how everything could possibly apply to oneself.

From there you weed out definitions and certain "spiritual" hokum. You see relative and you see association, a good species to learn from would be the dog.


I know, its a lot of talk for a high school graduate, but think of what we are talking about here.

Psychology is science, but it is only proportional to the study, and is seldom applied in other areas.

 

[ScottySatan]

You don't need a degree, you just need to hang around a lab for awhile.

Let me think about that for a while. Magic is still very new to me. Physchology in science is very widespread. Sociology? hmm. Help me narrow this down, one thing at a time. Here's one thing that happens in science.

I take a mouse from my house and a mouse from your house and I measure the length of their tails with a ruler. The mouse tail from my house is 3 inches long. The mouse tail from your house is 27 inches. Your mouse tail is longer than mine.

1) Does sociology apply to that event? Not the events leading up to them like the decision to do that experiment, but the actual measurement and the conclusion? Would someone from a different society come up with a different finding if he measured our mouse tails?

2) What the hell goes on in your house that you have mice with such long tails?

 

[Orias]

Alright I see what you mean. So I will give you a pretty simple example, be straightforward and answer with the given variables, I can toss more in there as we continue.

e1. The physicists at college A are very well invested and are very vocal in their scientific community. They share knowledge with everyone that stops by and say spiteful things to those who do not wish to seek their knowledge.

e1(2). The philosophers at college B have poor investments and lack any confirmable insight within the scientific community. They share no knowledge with anyone and could care less for outsiders.

q1. What college is more successful?

q2. What college is more meaningful to you?

q3. What college possess the most amount of knowledge?

q4. How does this knowledge affect human interaction?

q5. Where does knowledge from either of the two bodies arise in governmental form?

 

[ScottySatan]

q1. What college is more successful?

q2. What college is more meaningful to you?

q3. What college possess the most amount of knowledge?

q4. How does this knowledge affect human interaction?

q5. Where does knowledge from either of the two bodies arise in governmental form?

1) don't know, not enough info.
2) I'm indifferent.
3) don't know, not enough info.
4) don't know.
5) don't know.


This stuff is about education and politics, not science.

 

[Orias]

This stuff is about education and politics, not science.

I thought you would get a little more personal. Though this is a bit revealing, why is science excluded?

Answer with what you have, you will get more.

 

[Orias]

You don't need a degree, you just need to hang around a lab for awhile.

Let me think about that for a while. Magic is still very new to me. Physchology in science is very widespread. Sociology? hmm. Help me narrow this down, one thing at a time. Here's one thing that happens in science.

I take a mouse from my house and a mouse from your house and I measure the length of their tails with a ruler. The mouse tail from my house is 3 inches long. The mouse tail from your house is 27 inches. Your mouse tail is longer than mine.

1) Does sociology apply to that event? Not the events leading up to them like the decision to do that experiment, but the actual measurement and the conclusion? Would someone from a different society come up with a different finding if he measured our mouse tails?

2) What the hell goes on in your house that you have mice with such long tails?

I'm actually starting to second guess the point of this post.

Science is essentially the observation of natural phenomena. Which as you know is subject to opinion.

"Science" doesn't think, the people moving the machine do. What is "natural" is subjected to what is "common".

Even Albert Einstein said that all arts, sciences and religions are branches of the same tree.

The main point I was trying to get across is that science is as faith based as any other religion, if not even more simply based upon the level of conviction and "evidence" a certain scientist may portray as "accurate".

2+2 is as consistent as humans, so I guess I don't know what or how much that speaks for whatever

 

[jasonwill2]

I only read the first page, but will say that while I like System of a Down, I think they are failing to realize that Science has given us many things.

How can science fail if it has been held back by religion and money for so long? This is one of their songs I sadly must disagree with.

 

[Orias]

Science has given us many things and then turned around found out that most of what was given to us can actually be harmful to us and other species around us.

I tend to think that global warming is more than a myth.

 

[jasonwill2]

Science has given us many things and then turned around found out that most of what was given to us can actually be harmful to us and other species around us.

I tend to think that global warming is more than a myth.

It is a myth; because it's not global "warming", its global climate change. It isnt just heating, but also cooling. The real issue is that are pollution is messing with the air currents, and this could have great consequences for huge population centers as water levels rise and storms occur from teh messed with biosphere.

 

[Orias]

It is a myth; because it's not global "warming", its global climate change. It isnt just heating, but also cooling. The real issue is that are pollution is messing with the air currents, and this could have great consequences for huge population centers as water levels rise and storms occur from teh messed with biosphere.

It is global warming, climate change has little do with the totality of "global".

Sea levels are rising, the tectonic plates are shifting. If the polar caps are melting the world is most definitely "warming", the cooling effect is merely a consequence of the shifting climate, that is shifting in result of the unbalance of warmth and coolness.

And I don't think the caps are melting just because of the climate IMO, I think that as magma gets closer to the surface it creates more of an internal thawing process. As well as friction created by the clash of continental plates and such.

Call it hokum if you will.

The world is due for a polar shift after all isn't it?

 

[jasonwill2]

It is global warming, climate change has little do with the totality of "global".

Sea levels are rising, the tectonic plates are shifting. If the polar caps are melting the world is most definitely "warming", the cooling effect is merely a consequence of the shifting climate, that is shifting in result of the unbalance of warmth and coolness.

And I don't think the caps are melting just because of the climate IMO, I think that as magma gets closer to the surface it creates more of an internal thawing process. As well as friction created by the clash of continental plates and such.

Call it hokum if you will.

The world is due for a polar shift after all isn't it?

The polar as in magnetic fields? Dunno if its been the 10,000 year or not yet. Though I didnt mean literally global warming was a myth, just that i thought it was a misleading term beacuse of the cooling after it

 

[Orias]

The polar as in magnetic fields? Dunno if its been the 10,000 year or not yet. Though I didnt mean literally global warming was a myth, just that i thought it was a misleading term beacuse of the cooling after it

Well it could be the literal magnetic fields as much as the literal switch in what humans seek as more desireable.

Hence the thread I made about welcoming the age of Satan.

I have noticed that the opposite has indeed become quite more desireable.

 

[Kori Houghton]

It is global warming, climate change has little do with the totality of "global".

Sea levels are rising, the tectonic plates are shifting. If the polar caps are melting the world is most definitely "warming", the cooling effect is merely a consequence of the shifting climate, that is shifting in result of the unbalance of warmth and coolness.

And I don't think the caps are melting just because of the climate IMO, I think that as magma gets closer to the surface it creates more of an internal thawing process. As well as friction created by the clash of continental plates and such.

Call it hokum if you will.

The world is due for a polar shift after all isn't it?

Tectonic plates are always shifting. When they stop, earth will have cooled to the point where life on the planet as it is now will not be possible.

Sea levels have risen and fallen many times throughout the planet's history, and several times within human history.

Significant climate change, such as 'The Little Ice Age' that ended about 150 years ago, was likely not caused solely by terrestrial circumstances and events. Climate change has been triggered by volcanic erruptions on Earth, but also by collisions with comets or meteors, or even changes in the sun's activity. The mechanisms that control Earth's climate are not well understood and not accurately predictable at this point, other than us knowing with certainty that climate change will occur. Not if, but when and how are the questions.

 

[Orias]

Thanks for filling in what I left out

I would also like to mention that the rising level of Yellow Stone National Park is definitely something to worry about, I actually do think that "The Ice Age" was caused by an amount of variables like exploding super volcanoes and perhaps even maybe the coincidence of the Earth being battered by meteorites.

 

[ScottySatan]

I'm actually starting to second guess the point of this post.

Science is essentially the observation of natural phenomena. Which as you know is subject to opinion.

"Science" doesn't think, the people moving the machine do. What is "natural" is subjected to what is "common".

Even Albert Einstein said that all arts, sciences and religions are branches of the same tree.

The main point I was trying to get across is that science is as faith based as any other religion, if not even more simply based upon the level of conviction and "evidence" a certain scientist may portray as "accurate".

2+2 is as consistent as humans, so I guess I don't know what or how much that speaks for whatever

Sorry if I didn't give a very a satisfying answer to your hypothetical questions, but they were my most honest answer. I don't think that would be a typical answer. You're right that there is intense bias in what we choose to study and how we choose to do education and outreach. But again, if science doesn't study what you want or communicate the way you'd like, the solution is to do it yourself or petition a scientist with words or cash. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a pretty good example.

I agree that science has some faith in it. Though it is not nearly AS FAITH BASED AS ANY RELIGION. I'd say it's about as faith based as agnosticism. You are making assumptions that you shouldn't. Which brings me to the mechanism of the flaw in science: sometimes scientists make assumptions that they shouldn't. However, unlike in religion, scientists have no emotional or logical dependence on their assumptions. We work hard to root these things out and kill them. Learning to recognise these flaws is the bulk of formal science training after your bachelor's degree. That's why I said that a scientist is the best person to identify flaws in science. Something I hear a lot is "the data is correct, but the interpretation wasn't". And that often starts a public shouting match. But in the end, everyone gets over it.

It does often get to the point that we tend to disbelieve something that apparently contradicts a theory that has stood the test of time. And that does, almost by definition, slow down progress. But we have to make sure. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, right? Yes that is a limitation, but there is no evidence or reasoning whereby this limitation makes any truth inaccessible. Rather, historical evidence points otherwise.

 

[jasonwill2]

Sorry if I didn't give a very a satisfying answer to your hypothetical questions, but they were my most honest answer. I don't think that would be a typical answer. You're right that there is intense bias in what we choose to study and how we choose to do education and outreach. But again, if science doesn't study what you want or communicate the way you'd like, the solution is to do it yourself or petition a scientist with words or cash. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a pretty good example.

I agree that science has some faith in it. Though it is not nearly AS FAITH BASED AS ANY RELIGION. I'd say it's about as faith based as agnosticism. You are making assumptions that you shouldn't. Which brings me to the mechanism of the flaw in science: sometimes scientists make assumptions that they shouldn't. However, unlike in religion, scientists have no emotional or logical dependence on their assumptions. We work hard to root these things out and kill them. Learning to recognise these flaws is the bulk of formal science training after your bachelor's degree. That's why I said that a scientist is the best person to identify flaws in science. Something I hear a lot is "the data is correct, but the interpretation wasn't". And that often starts a public shouting match. But in the end, everyone gets over it.

It does often get to the point that we tend to disbelieve something that apparently contradicts a theory that has stood the test of time. And that does, almost by definition, slow down progress. But we have to make sure. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, right? Yes that is a limitation, but there is no evidence or reasoning whereby this limitation makes any truth inaccessible. Rather, historical evidence points otherwise.

I agree.

 

[Orias]

Sorry if I didn't give a very a satisfying answer to your hypothetical questions, but they were my most honest answer. I don't think that would be a typical answer. You're right that there is intense bias in what we choose to study and how we choose to do education and outreach. But again, if science doesn't study what you want or communicate the way you'd like, the solution is to do it yourself or petition a scientist with words or cash. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a pretty good example.

Maybe I should of said this earlier, or maybe I tried too (I can't remember).

But the questions I asked you were to designed to draw out what brings you out of your shell.

What perks the notion of interest.

Obviously, from a Satanist to another, we have reached similar conclusions on differing occasions and moments of "taking things in".

This is the point, science is subject to what you mention and to what I refer as too essential lobbyism. Honesty and propagation are subject to who is born with more cash (or amounts to it).

But I always question if hard earned and wealthy people can even be considered "smart" or logical. I made a thread about a matter concerning what is the most logical logic of course, I hardly perked a response besides basically asking if I go to school to study it...or something like that. (though there were a couple of respectable posts)

Anyways...

You say you answer honestly, but is what you assert as "honest" based off scientific reasoning?

I would assume that you understand that not everything can be observed "scientifically".

And even if it is not so, is it how it is?

How does one tell another...what is?

I agree that science has some faith in it. Though it is not nearly AS FAITH BASED AS ANY RELIGION. I'd say it's about as faith based as agnosticism. You are making assumptions that you shouldn't. Which brings me to the mechanism of the flaw in science: sometimes scientists make assumptions that they shouldn't. However, unlike in religion, scientists have no emotional or logical dependence on their assumptions. We work hard to root these things out and kill them. Learning to recognise these flaws is the bulk of formal science training after your bachelor's degree. That's why I said that a scientist is the best person to identify flaws in science. Something I hear a lot is "the data is correct, but the interpretation wasn't". And that often starts a public shouting match. But in the end, everyone gets over it.

Alright...

Well just because you were trained to be a manager does not mean I cannot be a manager without training. I do after all, work for you.

Unless there are indeed "grunts" of science, in which would apply to your shouting matches perhaps.

In that case, the most correct is the most number of people that line up quickly and certainly in a single file line in order to give witness and comply..."Oh yea I saw the same thing too" Bla bla bla. You get it.

Heh, "the data was correct but the interpretation wasn't". I'd like to have a chat with the guy who interprets the data. Unless data is an already clear and confirmed thing that all scientists agree to.

I don't know really, but I do know that interpretation is most definitely necessary.

Unless one is a learned slave :slap:

I always thought that school and the people at school were trying to pull a blind over my eyes. The education was straightforward, but the feeling I got off most people wasn't.

This sort of thing probably isn't confusing to most people though.

It does often get to the point that we tend to disbelieve something that apparently contradicts a theory that has stood the test of time. And that does, almost by definition, slow down progress. But we have to make sure. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, right? Yes that is a limitation, but there is no evidence or reasoning whereby this limitation makes any truth inaccessible. Rather, historical evidence points otherwise.

Like I said, science creates two.

When more dye are cast, the numbers get higher and more...."random". I do fancy dancing... and rockin my bleepin face off.

With that said, science leaves many doors to open. Some are more revealing than others, some reveal nothing (or do they?), some reveal what you already know, and some are perhaps the reason for why we don't remember most of our dreams.

 

[ScottySatan]

I wonder sometimes "what could science never measure?". I can't find an answer that stands to any hard scrutiny. Every time I think of something, I can't answer the question "how do you know?". Today, human thought itself can be displayed in real time on a video monitor and played on a speaker.

 

[Orias]

As far as things concern me, I know them, because I invoke them.

As far as things are, I don't know anything.