Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: incubaby_421]
    #3660803 -

oh god i love science I'm considering majoring in philosophy or chemistry and just for the sake of arguing i took the science & philosophy don't mix response b/c no one was agreeing with him. Do they mix of course they do but both relatively are on different levels of thinking you need elementary logic for science and what not. I think philosophy is one of the most important subjects one should know because you always encounter arguments in everyday life. I never see to many post on here worth arguing on but since i debunked my own argument i really can't proceed. BUT NOTE I AM NOT A HIPPIE! I really could care less about science posts in here.


--------------------

----ALL MY POSTS ARE FICTIONAL-------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: incubaby_421]
    #3661043 -

I guess my main problem in all this is that as a person educated in science and technology who makes their living in this field as well, I find bogus science an insult to my intelligence. If you think your subject IS truly science then it is at home in the science forum. The funny thing is, though, that most of the science I see posted here is about PSI, UFOs, astral projection, and claims that scientists have empirically proven (or disproven) the existence of God. Now while these things are spiritual (somewhat) and philosophical matters they are misrepresented as science to give them false credibility. Presenting them for what they truly are is the only honest way to present it...but once again if one wants to call it "science" then post it in the science forum. Now, if you want to call the honest search for truth an inquisition I have no sympathy, for this is a means to be dishonest while seeming indignant. I don't care about the fickle attitudes and moods of such "sensitive" folk...I care for the truth.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3661423 -

not that I want you to start naming specific threads in reply, but I haven't noticed any threads lately where the person declares "The following is scientific (and therefore must be true)" before giving the link to wherever, or launching into whatever diatribe. when someone has an idea for a thread, they post it in which ever forum they think it's most suitable for. you don't have to feel your intelligence is being insulted when something is represented in a certain way by someone. I think most of us generally get the gist of most threads, without having to get bent out of shape because the idea is put uneloquently. most of my writing (present included) is pretty ungraceful, but I still get ideas across I hope.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: Zekebomb]
    #3663190 -

sorry GNIOM... your a hippie, i dont consider hippie a social class so much as a state of mind, and you my freind, are a hippie... dont worry, its not a bad thing. just dont tell your punk rocker freinds.


--------------------
"yet the more i dig, the more i consume, the more i unfold... the less protected i feel.
i am the spit on the hair of the son of an electron, swimming around the nucleus of a cell inside the sperm of a killer bee, and my purpose is as nebulous as why weve been bestowed with the capacity to give a shit" Brandon Boyd


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: incubaby_421]
    #3664030 -

I have been seeing this problem from time to time and it seems to be one of the greater causes of conflict around here.

The difference between philosophy and science is:
philosophy can't be proven,
science is what is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

science is a tool for discovrering objective truth,
spirituality for discovering subjective truth.

When one is applied to the other problems arise, this is often misunderstood because where a crossover occurs, for example science in support of their religion, they don't expect the scrutiny that would be applied to for example, plate tectonics and a tsunami. People use the protection the label of philosophy allows their ideology when it is the same as science, and makes claims unto objective reality.

At the same time, recently I have came to an equal realization that often science is tangentally included in personal philosophy, whether or not one agrees with the philosophy, I can not make an attack unto philosophy the same modern science or psuedo science.

What I am saying is it is a two way street.


--------------------
"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: oceansize]
    #3664124 -

An excellent summary of the problem. When I first posted the thread some people automatically assumed I was attacking spiritualism because I said that science and spiritualism were not equivalent. This was considered by one user to be an "inquisition". If something is spiritualism or philosophy I have no problem reading it here...even if I do not agree with the premise. I have a problem when misrepresentation occurs. I love your response as it is much more eloquent and elegant than I am capable of delivering...with much less ego and attitude. You have a sharp mind in this way.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Edited by Huehuecoyotl (01/22/05 07:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3664278 -

Yes but only because i have faced this conflict a few times recently.  At first I thought it was due to my own hubris, but then I realized that I mean full well with my posts that delve into this overlap, and that there must be a way to reconcile the two, a reason toes get stepped on so easily.  I can't find peace of mind until I reconcile a problem that arises in my own ideology like this.

I haven't been frequenting the forum too much and by chance thought about this exact problem, you might have posted out of frustration,
:smile:
hue that is the only reason  i came with less attitude or ego


--------------------
"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: oceansize]
    #3664751 -

actually a law is something thats been proven, the act of science is trying to prove thoeries (educated guesses) to be correct and therefore become laws, so really, at the basis of it all, science and philosophy arent that far off from one another.


--------------------
"yet the more i dig, the more i consume, the more i unfold... the less protected i feel.
i am the spit on the hair of the son of an electron, swimming around the nucleus of a cell inside the sperm of a killer bee, and my purpose is as nebulous as why weve been bestowed with the capacity to give a shit" Brandon Boyd


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: incubaby_421]
    #3665138 -

I'm not a punk.....heavy metal all the way I guess some states of mind i would consider myself as hippish but no way am i all hippie i am not at all peaceful and in touch with the world i am very angry depressed 75% of the day i take SHOWERS everyday and don't pick flowers for fun. PLEASE I AM NOT a hippie.... oh by the way recycle and buy fuel efficient cars please.....Peace


--------------------

----ALL MY POSTS ARE FICTIONAL-------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: incubaby_421]
    #3667057 -

"the act of science is trying to prove thoeries (educated guesses) to be correct and therefore become laws, so really, at the basis of it all, science and philosophy arent that far off from one another. "

Any Law in science can concieviably be proven wrong and the words 'theory' and 'law' are often used almost interchangably for accepted concepts in science That is why the highest level of acceptance in science "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" That is what makes science great, its ability to revise itself. Karl Popper suggested what seperates science from metaphysics or philosophic claims is science can be proven wrong, philosophy often can't.

But anyway, how does what you say connect philosophy and science? (I agree, I just don't know what you are getting at.)


--------------------
"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: oceansize]
    #3667096 -

I agree with you science and philosophy are not equivalent. Science, philosophy, and religion should remain separate. Their goals are different. I do not feel that any of these disciplines are superior to the others because they have different ends. I will say that when CERTAIN knowledge has been obtained through science that it is philosophy and religion that must give way. Following a philosophy that is at odds with true knowledge is to revel in one's ignorance.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3667099 -

i see what you are saying.

for example, when you say a word such as 'energy' you have to know where you are coming from.

when a physicist says energy, they are referring to a concept created by humans to help explain what is going on. for this definition, energy only exists on paper.

to the spiritual person, energy may be referring to a person's life force. 

i think that's why combining the two is very tricky.

I remember I got into a conversation one time with a friend, and he was trying to tell me the implications of Conservation of Energy law. since energy in equals energy out, he assumed they were talking about a different kind of energy.  I had to tell him that the conservation of energy law is the way it is because we made it that way nd not because of some coincidence. I dunno if that was a good example but I hope you get my drift :grin:

I don't think we should quickly say there can never be a combination of the two. isn't there room for potential?

Potential energy or just potential?


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: kaiowas]
    #3667373 -

oceansize, once you can prove wrong any law of science please inform me so that we can become rich together, i would get so much joy out of seeing somebody prove wrong the laws of motion, or gravity.....

I SAID LAWS

things that have been proven millions of times and cannot be disproven, the entire act of a scientific experiment is collectimg data to prove something.


--------------------
"yet the more i dig, the more i consume, the more i unfold... the less protected i feel.
i am the spit on the hair of the son of an electron, swimming around the nucleus of a cell inside the sperm of a killer bee, and my purpose is as nebulous as why weve been bestowed with the capacity to give a shit" Brandon Boyd


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: incubaby_421]
    #3667634 -

gee incubaby, off the very top of my mind I can fufill your request.

Newton's Law of Gravity, however millions of times it was proved right, was proved wrong with experiements with very big and very small amounts of mass.

The general theory of Relativity has taken its place.

Because classical mechanics still fit very well for almost all scenarios, and is easier than Einstein's equations, it is still used.

EVERY Law in science could concievably be disproven, that is what makes it science.


--------------------
"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: oceansize]
    #3667655 -

Newton's law of gravity wasn't proved incorrect. Only proved to be only applicable in certain reference frames. That is the same with most all of science because often certain behaviors vary depending on the scale. It is still a law and unrefutable on the scale of everyday existance. On other scales it is not applicable. If you were to describe the motion of a cannonball being shot out of a cannon and striking a bug on its way to hitting something, would you factor in the bug and it's obstruction on the cannonballs path. No, because the bug and its obstruction are so insignificant on the relative scale of the cannonball and its path, that it is taken that the bug doesn't exist.

Edited by relativexistance (01/23/05 12:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: incubaby_421]
    #3667764 -

The "Law" of conservation of mass, and the "Law" of conservation of energy were also proved wrong by Einstein with his special theory of relativity which states that mass can change into energy and vice versa. This was empirically proved by Paul Dirac when he observed that the annihilation of a positron and an electron produce electromagnetic radiation, but no mass particles. These two laws have since been combined into the single 'law' of conservation of mass/energy. Most physicists today have abandoned the notion of absolute 'laws' of science. What we are left with is models of reality which work most of the time and theories.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: kaiowas]
    #3667997 -

I don't consider terminology a problem. Using terms like energy in a spiritual way is valid as long as it is clear we are discussing a spiritual concept...and not physics. A problem arrises when you say that science has proven/disproven telepathy, telekenesis, remote viewing, astral projection, God, Jesus, Satan, Heaven, Hell, Valhalla, THE spiritual essence in man, or any such related concept, and present it as scientific fact. This is a gross perversion of science AND spiritualism. To reduce spiritualism to a small set of verifiable facts robs of us the wonderful mystery that surrounds our lives...and robs us in a most deceitful manner. It is also an assault on reason, logic, and science.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3668373 -

I don't consider terminology a problem.

hmm, I think almost all arguments on this forum are the result of incompatible terminology. when you get right to the root. seems like every time I stop to think about what I'm arguing (sorry, if you prefer, "discussing") about with someone, it's because we're both using some word which we have in common but which we both define differently.

Of course, maybe you have a different definition for the word 'terminology' than I do, and in that case you're right... see what I mean? damn. words only work as containers for idea transport up to a certain point. after that point you have to have experiences in common with someone, to know what they're talking about. but even that only goes so far, and at the end of it, you're completely alone in the universe with your beliefs and definitions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: Zekebomb]
    #3668437 -

Zekebomb said:
at the end of it, you're completely alone in the universe with your beliefs and definitions.


i agree with that on a philosophical level however i dont its right to confuse science and pseudoscience. there is a distinct line between the two.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Pseudoscience [Re: relativexistance]
    #3669045 -

Well, of course, referring to psychics as scientists, or referring to psychic research as scientific research, or calling theologians scientists would be deceptive in a way as to obscure what you were really discussing. If I use the word energy when discussing to Feng Shui I would be quite correct as "chi" or positive and negative energy are often referred to in this setting. There is no danger I will think that we are discussing objective science. The practice I am discussing is deliberately confusing science and philosophy to try to gain credibility for yourself.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* pseudoscience *DELETED* moog 632 10 02/19/05 09:01 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Why science is stupid
( 1 2 all )		 Mixomatosis 2,285 36 11/13/03 05:45 PM
by Strumpling
* The Holographic Universe- Science and Spirituality
( 1 2 3 all )		 gettinjiggywithit 6,919 42 03/17/08 03:25 AM
by 764hero
* science, religion, and philosophy Huehuecoyotl 1,691 15 01/28/05 10:05 AM
by Droz
* Traps and pitfalls of logic and science.
( 1 2 all )		 gribochek 4,563 28 04/23/02 10:06 PM
by infidelGOD
* "Convenient" Commingling of Science Terms
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 4,143 44 02/13/12 02:02 AM
by OrgoneConclusion
* Pseudoscience. Phluck 1,374 19 11/23/02 04:40 PM
by GoBlue!
* Argument by Design Bullfrog1 1,671 10 12/09/07 07:38 PM
by Holly

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,697 topic views. 0 members, 181 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.