What is science to you?

[JessFR]

In my opinion, humans as a whole have an unhealthy obsession with death.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

I have found just the opposite. Most humans are afraid even to discuss the subject in a serious way.

 

[swilow]

Given it is the only thing you can be certain of, I understand our obsession. We may not discuss it enough but it is the subtext of much of our behaviour and fears.

Maybe the unhealthy part is our fear of death. Whilst its natural to fear death, even the most frightened person dies. Its hard to say fearing death makes living better.

 

[Foreigner]

It's weird because if you face death due to an illness, eventually the illness softens and weakens your ego so much that you don't care as much about death. And if you're about to die instantly then you only fear it up until the point. In other words the very ego that is afraid of death is also rendered irrelevant upon its approach.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be compassionate towards the fear. It's a rather scary unknown for a mind that doesn't understand.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Given it is the only thing you can be certain of, I understand our obsession. We may not discuss it enough but it is the subtext of much of our behaviour and fears.

Maybe the unhealthy part is our fear of death. Whilst its natural to fear death, even the most frightened person dies. Its hard to say fearing death makes living better.

It certainly doesn't make life better. It makes it worse in almost uncountable ways. Check out Ernest Becker's Denial of Death and you may find yourself in agreement with him that fear of death is responsible for most if not all the ills of humanity. His theories are very compelling IMO and have all been backed up by scientific studies done by the TMT folk (Terror Management Theory). That book changed my life more than anything else I've ever read and I've read a shitload of books in 63 years. It completely blew my mind into smithereens.

 

[Foreigner]

What I'm trying to get at is the belief that things like spirituality can't be probed by science, and so every person's subjective opinion on the matter is what has to be trusted instead. Personal beliefs I have nothing against, but some people go as far as to suggest that if you're trying to base your spiritual beliefs on scientific knowledge, then you're doing it wrong.

I see this problem come up often... like science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. Never really understood it, personally.

What most don't realize is that if something can't be verified and isn't based on existing knowledge, then it's just conjecture/pure speculation. All the biases humans are prone to when it comes to subjective opinions or observations aside, this kind of freedom to suggest anything is counterproductive in my opinion, and results in an exercise in futility as far as discussion of such topics goes if the deciding factor is "I believe so".

The issue is that there are different standards of evidence and different hierarchies of evidence across many systems. What is beyond the domain of science to analyze is entering the realm of conjecture, unless the subject matter touches on the periphery of science, in which case science can make educated guesses based on the kind of probabilistic extrapolation you mentioned earlier. Those probabilities themselves are based on a self-referential authority within science that the body of work is concrete and therefore a suitable platform for less concrete explorations. Every human system has these self-referential authorities. It's a constant philosophical problem. In other words, during the era of alchemy and astrology, these sciences were viewed as concrete. Now they're not. This internal correction is common to all systems, including spiritual ones, not just science. That's why the critique that spirituality is not self-corrective because it's purely opinion doesn't add up. What does that mean for people who never have the privileged of learning the scientific method? What does their reality mean?

The other issue is language, IMO. A lot of systems are saying similar things but they talk past each other or dismiss one another due to inclusivity. For example, I practice Classical Chinese Medicine. It's based on inductive reasoning over thousands of years of observation. It was a scientific model that arose from Daoist and Buddhist philosophy, later becoming its own logical framework. We use that same diagnostic system today. The same is true of the Vedic texts, probably about 5,000 years old. We are supposed to toss out entire bodies of knowledge as "conjecture" just because the scientific method hasn't probed them, or currently can't? I have used medical methods that have no basis in modern science in of themselves, to cure people of disease. Seriously... I have cured some people of cancer and other conditions, using just a straight CM model. Science doesn't yet know why it works in general.

The hierarchy you're using is up-down, whereas I'm looking at systems sideways. One beside the other. Which aspects of them can talk to each other and which ones can't. If they can, what could be some translated similarities? If they can't, then what is the incompatibility? Is the incompatibility based on a true heuristic error or is there a specific unique knowledge that is beyond translation?

If you look at things sideways, then spirituality can also explain why and how, just like science can explain why and how. I think some people within science or within spirituality forget that any platform can become the basic framework from which human beings extrapolate self-knowledge, environmental awareness, and greater meaning. We are all projecting these frameworks onto a universe which is inherently empty.

Science is just more convincing because it explains things in the dense physical, which is the basis of our more material existence. But because it cannot explain consciousness, life/death, and other big questions, other branches must take over. It's just strange when some scientists acknowledge these limits while simultaneously calling other systems pure speculation. How exactly do they expect the knowledge gap between their system and others to be explained? Are we just supposed to sit with that nothingness and absence of personal meaning?

On that note... science is very privileged. Not many people have access to the academic journals or the peer reviewed process. Maybe if everyone in the world were on equal footing and was privy to this info, as well as methods, we could understand what's really going on.

 

[belligerent drunk]

The issue is that there are different standards of evidence and different hierarchies of evidence across many systems. What is beyond the domain of science to analyze is entering the realm of conjecture, unless the subject matter touches on the periphery of science, in which case science can make educated guesses based on the kind of probabilistic extrapolation you mentioned earlier. Those probabilities themselves are based on a self-referential authority within science that the body of work is concrete and therefore a suitable platform for less concrete explorations. Every human system has these self-referential authorities. It's a constant philosophical problem. In other words, during the era of alchemy and astrology, these sciences were viewed as concrete. Now they're not. This internal correction is common to all systems, including spiritual ones, not just science. That's why the critique that spirituality is not self-corrective because it's purely opinion doesn't add up. What does that mean for people who never have the privileged of learning the scientific method? What does their reality mean?

My main quarrel with opinion-based arguments is that in my experience, they make for rather fruitless discussions. If both parties base their arguments on verifiable data, and using sound logic to arrive at the implications they're arguing for, then there's a lot of stuff to work with to try and figure out whose argument is more sound. However, if an argument is built on subjective grounds such as "it has to be that way because it feels right to me", then at the end of the day, what can you do with it? I understand that it's very hard to hold all fields to the same standard, as some are easily verifiable while others inherently aren't; which is why I have a hard time participating in discussions of spiritualistic nature (and honestly also have a hard time forming my own beliefs on the matter). Whatever the case, that is still no excuse to argue something that is in rather clear violation of what we know about the world, which unfortunately happens quite often. That is what I was trying to say - there is the notion that because the subject is not directly related to "science", then one's ideas and concepts don't have to adhere to known nature's laws. It's as if, like I said earlier, science is an isolated domain that only concerns itself with some portion of reality, and everything "outside" of it is an intellectual free-for-all.

You could argue that humans back in the day of alchemy and astrology hadn't yet come up with the scientific method as we know it today - but that also begs the question of what we're not realizing yet, because obviously people back then were not any less intelligent than we are today, we just have more knowledge available to us (ie. we stand on the shoulders of giants). Still, I think it is rather hard to argue against the core principle of the scientific method - that knowledge about our world has to be obtained using verifiable methods, of which experiment is one; the finer details of what standards need to be had are up for discussion of course, as I think the Popper's model of only "falsifiable hypotheses count as science" is a little outdated. My own stance on the applicability of science is that if something can't be tested using the scientific method, then one has to be very careful about making claims on the subject - they may not be wrong, but they may not be right either. In short, one has to be able to admit that they just don't know. Because as humans we 'don't know a lot, and it is sort of liberating to admit it, in my opinion at least.

Well, I don't know if you can make sense of my jabbering, or if I even addressed what you said reasonably well, but there we go.

The other issue is language, IMO. A lot of systems are saying similar things but they talk past each other or dismiss one another due to inclusivity. For example, I practice Classical Chinese Medicine. It's based on inductive reasoning over thousands of years of observation. It was a scientific model that arose from Daoist and Buddhist philosophy, later becoming its own logical framework. We use that same diagnostic system today. The same is true of the Vedic texts, probably about 5,000 years old. We are supposed to toss out entire bodies of knowledge as "conjecture" just because the scientific method hasn't probed them, or currently can't? I have used medical methods that have no basis in modern science in of themselves, to cure people of disease. Seriously... I have cured some people of cancer and other conditions, using just a straight CM model. Science doesn't yet know why it works in general.

I see a fundamental conflict in what you're saying, which is an example of my problem with the understanding of science people have that I mentioned earlier. You're obviously a lot more familiar with the finer details of Chinese medicine and whatnot, so forgive my ignorance, but I'll try to talk in general terms. The fact that "science doesn't know how it works" isn't equal to saying "science says it doesn't work". You have empirical evidence that it does work - and that is some kind of proof in itself. You (proverbial) can conduct double-blind trials and see what effects certain Chinese medicine practices have. You may not know the mechanism, but at least you have objective empirical data that is enough to assess the usefulness of the practice. If you find that it in a controlled setting it is no different to placebo, then there must be some other explanation as to why it works in "outside of lab" practice. Because if you can show that it works, then there must be an explanation as to how.

It is not conjecture if you say that the practice works and show that it works, and then go on to suggest somebody to try it as a remedy (hypothetical scenario). It is, however, conjecture (or an intellectual leap of faith) if you conclude that the practice works because pink fairies fix the person, as that in no way logically follows from your observation. Saying that opium produces analgesia, in some cases euphoria etc is not conjecture, but saying that it does that because the god Morpheus is responsible, is - again, because there's no evidence to link the two.

Science is just more convincing because it explains things in the dense physical, which is the basis of our more material existence. But because it cannot explain consciousness, life/death, and other big questions, other branches must take over. It's just strange when some scientists acknowledge these limits while simultaneously calling other systems pure speculation. How exactly do they expect the knowledge gap between their system and others to be explained? Are we just supposed to sit with that nothingness and absence of personal meaning?

(my bolded part) I would rather say that it hasn't yet been explained. We're still mapping the brain in terms of what goes on in that extremely complex system, and we have insufficient holistic understanding of it to model consciousness, which is also a very complex thing, but it's a work-in-progress. We can isolate single aspects of human behaviour and link them to certain neurochemical pathways. We do know that, for example, benzos act on GABA-A receptors, and by altering the behaviour of neurons in areas of the brain that we think are responsible for inhibition, benzos cause diminished inhibition; it's only a part of what goes on at any one time in one's "mind", but we can show that it is possible to chemically alter one's consciousness, and we can show what parts of the brain are affected.

Anyway, I'll just throw it out there again. If we reduce science to a simple concept of "believe something if you can independently prove the hypothesis using observation and logic", then what kind of reasoning do other systems that you speak of use? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm curious as to how you would explain it. You can use pure logic to arrive at some conclusions, but the starting point has to be grounded in observable reality, no? The problem I see in many people's arguments is that their bias gets in the way and in order to arrive at the conclusion they want to be true, they (mostly subconsciously) make logical leaps similar to the exaggerated opium example above, even if their initial premises are true.

On that note... science is very privileged. Not many people have access to the academic journals or the peer reviewed process. Maybe if everyone in the world were on equal footing and was privy to this info, as well as methods, we could understand what's really going on.

Unfortunately, that is true, and it's a sad state of affairs. Nevermind that people are inherently pisspoor at doing logic and are prone to biases, they often don't even have access to proper knowledge. The whole making science a business thing that is going on currently upsets me a lot. You can't put a price tag on knowledge, because it's perhaps the most important thing that humanity has; and possibly the only way we can salvage the shitty global situation we're currently in.

E: woah, sorry for the long ass post.

 

[Foreigner]

^ No worries about the long post, I appreciate the detail and I'm enjoying where this is going. I will respond to the bulk of it later but I just have some questions for you if you don't mind answering, based on what I just read. (Anyone else can answer too, of course.) I'm asking because I don't want to make assumptions.

What is the goal of science, in your mind? I know the basic definition, but I'm thinking more in the grand scheme. What is the goal?

Are all forms of logic the same, even if their epistemologies (ways of seeing and explaining reality) are different?

If something we observe works but can't be translated between systems of logic, how do we reconcile that? (I have seen this many times and can give many examples.)

Can science ever be truly separate from cultural and personal ethos? (Values, biases, cultural norms, epistemologies, etc.)

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Maybe one day computers will start to program themselves and we can have logic based science.

 

[jammin83]

not trying to break up what seems to be a pretty good discussion developing, but a couple thoughts if you dont mind.

I guess i just am failing to realize what good science is actually doing us. Seems like most things that we are discovering are going to waste. We are still destroying our environment, and its damn near impossible to go through a day without being poisoned (esp in the US of A).

Most of our brightest engineers go into oil or defense. I live in an area that has a lot of defense contractors and its kind of sad to see so many people that think they are participating in something good. its disgusting to me. sure, maybe some are in the communications dept or something, but others are actively finding ways to eliminate life in an 'efficient' manner. makes my skin crawl.

we still drive gas powered vehicles, our medical institutions keep us sick, make us sicker, and focus on maintenance drugs instead of cures. when a pharma company provides a useful drug that saves lives, it jacks up the price so much that only the wealthy can afford it.

In the US, our water is fluoridated. our food consists of GMOs without labels, we still put HFCS in everything, we are actively poisoning people, myself included. our farming practices deplete natural nutrients from soil and deprive us of the things we need to sustain life.

I can't help but feel that most our scientific advances are serving special interests. making money is great and everything, but I just don't know how much all of our advances have helped human kind in any sort of meaningful way. our society sucks, our medicine sucks, we blow people up for kicks and money, and the beneficial discoveries that are made are suppressed or gouge consumers. its ridiculous.

as long as money rules the world, most of science is going to go to waste. Its just another thing thats used as a means of control.

I don't believe in neutral, there is no working around biases. I think people are being guided in one way or another and objectivity is just about impossible to obtain.

 

[swilow]

Scientific advances have made our lives longer and healthier, have helped us reduce suffering of the poor by providing food and clean water, have made our lives easier and safer. Its given us a clue as to how reality functions, what we are doing in the universe, how life evolves. Its given us knowledge when before we only had faith.

There's a downside and that is the way humans have exploited scientific advances.

 

[belligerent drunk]

What is the goal of science, in your mind? I know the basic definition, but I'm thinking more in the grand scheme. What is the goal?

Depends on who you ask, really. Science as a method has no goal itself, it's up to humans to decide what to use it for, in my opinion. For me, I just want to learn more about how reality works; practical applications of science are secondary to me. Although it's unlikely to happen, but I would really love to have a solid understanding of how life came to be, what this (and perhaps other) universe is all about, and how human (or other organisms) body works in detail, especially the brain.

Are all forms of logic the same, even if their epistemologies (ways of seeing and explaining reality) are different?

If something we observe works but can't be translated between systems of logic, how do we reconcile that? (I have seen this many times and can give many examples.)

Unfortunately I can't answer these questions because I'm not familiar with the differences between systems of logic. If you could provide the examples you're talking about, then maybe I could understand.

Can science ever be truly separate from cultural and personal ethos? (Values, biases, cultural norms, epistemologies, etc.)

Tough question. I think that as long as science is done by humans, it will be prone to biases and errors one way or another. We can do our best to try and eliminate the human factor from it, but at the end of the day, nobody's perfect. I think that in recent times science has become more objective though, as in more separate from the cultural background of the people doing it. Science unites people in a way - people from different nations, with different languages and cultures, different religions all come together to try and achieve the same goal.

In an ideal world, science is impartial because laws of nature are the same in USA, Europe, China, Africa, wherever, and the method used to probe nature is based on the same principles regardless of location or personal preferences. It's the same with logic. But in our world you can never be sure that petty personal interests don't get in the way. I can make no prediction whether that will ever change.

I guess i just am failing to realize what good science is actually doing us. Seems like most things that we are discovering are going to waste. We are still destroying our environment, and its damn near impossible to go through a day without being poisoned (esp in the US of A). [...]

In the US, our water is fluoridated. our food consists of GMOs without labels, we still put HFCS in everything, we are actively poisoning people, myself included. our farming practices deplete natural nutrients from soil and deprive us of the things we need to sustain life.

Practically everything we take for granted today was one way or another achieved using the scientific method (regardless of whether people at the time realized it or not). Knowledge about technology didn't come as a revelation from higher powers, man arrived at it through trial and error, using the scientific method. Sure, there are still great problems in the world, but quality of life in the last 10,000 years improved immensely. I'm not sure why people don't realize this. Just think about the life people had to live 10,000 years ago...

As for the fluoride, GMO and other stuff; well, that's just conspiracy theories. Fluoride in the amounts used in drinking water is practically harmless to the body, but it helps strengthen the enamel; in some places fluoride is added to drinking water, in some places with naturally high fluoride levels, some of it has to be removed to maintain a healthy concentration. As for GMOs - everything is GMO. If you do selective breeding, then your resulting plant is genetically modified through selective breeding (choosing particular genes over less desired ones). There is no fundamental difference between ways a gene is incorporated into the genome of a plant - you can "insert" it using vectors (what you call GMO), or you can do it by selective breeding. Except the former option allows for more precise modification. If you own a dog of a particular breed, then your dog is GMO.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

not trying to break up what seems to be a pretty good discussion developing, but a couple thoughts if you dont mind.

I guess i just am failing to realize what good science is actually doing us. Seems like most things that we are discovering are going to waste. We are still destroying our environment, and its damn near impossible to go through a day without being poisoned (esp in the US of A).

Most of our brightest engineers go into oil or defense. I live in an area that has a lot of defense contractors and its kind of sad to see so many people that think they are participating in something good. its disgusting to me. sure, maybe some are in the communications dept or something, but others are actively finding ways to eliminate life in an 'efficient' manner. makes my skin crawl.

we still drive gas powered vehicles, our medical institutions keep us sick, make us sicker, and focus on maintenance drugs instead of cures. when a pharma company provides a useful drug that saves lives, it jacks up the price so much that only the wealthy can afford it.

In the US, our water is fluoridated. our food consists of GMOs without labels, we still put HFCS in everything, we are actively poisoning people, myself included. our farming practices deplete natural nutrients from soil and deprive us of the things we need to sustain life.

I can't help but feel that most our scientific advances are serving special interests. making money is great and everything, but I just don't know how much all of our advances have helped human kind in any sort of meaningful way. our society sucks, our medicine sucks, we blow people up for kicks and money, and the beneficial discoveries that are made are suppressed or gouge consumers. its ridiculous.

as long as money rules the world, most of science is going to go to waste. Its just another thing thats used as a means of control.

I don't believe in neutral, there is no working around biases. I think people are being guided in one way or another and objectivity is just about impossible to obtain.

Science is helping us maximise the effects of our dysfunctionality. It's really great.

 

[Xorkoth]

As for the fluoride, GMO and other stuff; well, that's just conspiracy theories. Fluoride in the amounts used in drinking water is practically harmless to the body, but it helps strengthen the enamel; in some places fluoride is added to drinking water, in some places with naturally high fluoride levels, some of it has to be removed to maintain a healthy concentration. As for GMOs - everything is GMO. If you do selective breeding, then your resulting plant is genetically modified through selective breeding (choosing particular genes over less desired ones). There is no fundamental difference between ways a gene is incorporated into the genome of a plant - you can "insert" it using vectors (what you call GMO), or you can do it by selective breeding. Except the former option allows for more precise modification. If you own a dog of a particular breed, then your dog is GMO.

Thank you for that. The whole GMO thing has taken on a note of hysteria. It's certainly possible to produce dangerous things that way, but responsible genetic modifications could really do a lot to help the world (producing drought-resistant or disease-resistant crops, for example). GMO does not automatically equal bad but there is a huge movement that says it does. There are companies (read: Monsanto_ that are using really sketchy practices with GMO, but it doesn't mean GMO is evil.

Same for fluoride... I don't support fluoride in drinking water systems but fluoride toothpaste is entirely harmless, fluoride cannot pass into the body through the mucous membranes (or so I read). However it absolutely DOES help protect teeth from decay, and ever since the advent of fluoride in toothpaste (and in water), tooth decay has gone down. Since we're living longer lives, this is something we want. My girlfriend refuses to use fluoride toothpaste, or GMO, or a bunch of other stuff, because she was raised by hippie parents who were on every bandwagon against everything. Her teeth are starting to suffer for it and I wish she'd use fluoride toothpaste but I can't convince her it's okay and isn't going to control her mind or calcify her pineal gland (which is conjecture by the way).

There is certainly a lot of bad stuff going on, and a lot of bad chemicals, ie, preservatives, artificial colors, etc, that goes into our food, but not everything going on is a bad thing.

I'm hippie-esque by the way, so don't think I'm bashing hippies at all, but I try to be informed.

 

[belligerent drunk]

You're absolutely correct, Xorkoth. Generally the more lipophilic a substance is, the more easily it passes through membranes (passive diffusion), unless there's a specific uptake mechanism. Fluoride is pretty much as non-lipophilic as it gets (ions don't pass through membranes), and I don't think there's specific fluoride uptake either. In that sense, using fluoridated toothpaste is the best option - you don't swallow it, but it still comes in contact with your teeth and so it strengthens them. Fluoridated water isn't nearly as efficient, because it is quickly swallowed. Still, the amounts in drinking water aren't dangerous. If they were, you would have noticed it already.

By the way, my fiancée used to be sort of like that as well until, through countless arguments (as in debates), she realized that believing in conspiracy theories is about as ignorant as believing everything the media says. Independent critical thinking, and looking for objective evidence (not the kind you find on "www.therealtruth.com") is the most sensible approach IMO.

PS just in case, I pulled that website out of my ass, don't go there... you never know who's reading this.

 

[swilow]

Vote Clinton!

 

[JessFR]

Here's a test, unless someone can tell you exactly what fluoride IS. They have no business having any opinion on it one way or the other.


Not a trick question, a basic high school level chemistry answer would suffice. Problem is no one remembers anything from their high school education.

It certainly doesn't make life better. It makes it worse in almost uncountable ways. Check out Ernest Becker's Denial of Death and you may find yourself in agreement with him that fear of death is responsible for most if not all the ills of humanity. His theories are very compelling IMO and have all been backed up by scientific studies done by the TMT folk (Terror Management Theory). That book changed my life more than anything else I've ever read and I've read a shitload of books in 63 years. It completely blew my mind into smithereens.

Thanks for the link. It amazes me peoples utter terror of death. You watch TV or god forbid read Facebook, and see the obsession with being healthy and not doing the wrong thing and this and that. You'd almost begin to believe that some of them think that if they just follow EVERY rule about staying healthy and safe, that they might never die at all.

I think we would all be better off worrying more about the deaths of other people and a lot less the deaths of ourselves. I'm more afraid of my death for the effect it would have on the people I love.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Jammin, you're taking this personal. Nobody denies that fluoride may cause negative health effects. It has been pretty much unambiguously shown that at high enough concentrations it negatively affects the brain. The study you linked mainly compared children exposed to "high" (1-10 mg/l) concentrations to children exposed to "normal" (0.2-1 mg/l). Typical concentrations in drinking water in developed countries are in the range of 0.2-1 mg/l. While it's some sort of information, it compares wrong groups of people - it adds to the evidence that exposure to high levels is harmful.

Whatever the case, the issue is more complicated than the conspiracy theory paints it to be. Why do you think the water is fluoridated in the first place? (or rather, a particular level of fluoride is maintained, either by fluoridation or defluoridation in areas with too high a level). Fluoride has few applications other than to prevent tooth decay. There are other well-known adverse effects of high level of fluoride, which is why the concentration is kept at a minimum. It's a cost/benefit analysis, though. Nothing is ever perfect, so you have to choose the lesser evil.

Another point is that, drinking water has been naturally fluoridated to some extent longer than humans existed. Way above the current recommended limit in some areas. It's not a new phenomenon. So why aren't all humans retarded? Why isn't everyone in the West retarded if water has been fluoridated since the 1940s? Perhaps because the effect on the brain at low levels is not enough to cause noticeable difference?

this isnt a science forum, this is a philosophy and sprituality forum, and last i checked anyone could post anything they wanted to so long as its within the forum guidelines. so quick to dismiss things you have little knowledge or understanding of bc you know something about chemistry. it discourages people from posting, which as a mod, thats more than a little inappropriate.

(my bolded part) This is actually part of the reason I created the thread. Why this being a P&S forum precludes anyone from using scientific knowledge to argue their points? What I find amazing is how quickly people cite some studies if they even remotely agree with what they believe, but take it as an insult if somebody uses science to argue against them.

A little off-topic: I always wonder how people believing in conspiracy theories reconcile with the two pretty much mutually exclusive ideas. On the one hand, the government is supposedly into some shady stuff that they try to cover up with all kinds of trickeries: buying off scientists, using mass media to spread propaganda, teaching lies in public schools etc. And then on the other hand, we have people who with nothing more than a computer are able to figure it all out. All the lies that thousands of top-level people so carefully orchestrated, all fall down at the click of a mouse. Doesn't it sound silly?

It's just something I noticed. Majority are very OK with what mass media has to say to them - they don't question the validity of the claims, and good for them. But then there are people who appear to be critical towards all of it (and for good reason), but at the same time are ready to believe anything that goes in line with their dislike of the government, no matter how ridiculous or stupid the claims are. And in the end, both sides believe that they know the truth, when in fact if somebody wanted to orchestrate mass lies, then there's no better way to do it than artificially create two opposing sides, and then feed them both with their own propaganda.

------

As for the mockery and whatnot, jammin, I'm sorry that you feel this way, but nobody is mocking you (in this thread or forum at least). I usually talk in general terms, about people or groups of people in general, and never try to make the discussion personal. You've got your opinion, I've got mine - great, let's discuss them and see who's right based on the merits of our arguments. For what it's worth, you don't piss me off, and I'm pretty used to people disagreeing with me and even personally insulting me for having a different opinion - I guess it kind of comes with trying to be critical. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would continue to contribute to this forum.

 

[szuko000]

I have always and will always be a scientist, my mother recently showing me a progress report from when I was 10 stating that "he quickly made a name for himself as the class scientist"

Anyway science and the methods their of have greatly impacted my world view. My main interest is chemistry so thats how I see the world. Its almost like an on off thing I can either see the world as chemical interactions of what is or could be, all solvents and medicines are understandable and come with a list of purposes when I think about it.

I am not spiritual at all. I often have a hard time with concepts of luck and spirituality as they do not apply in my life. Luck is me simply imposing my will on the universe causing it to bend in my favor, if I continue to expend energy on something eventually what i want to happen will happen. There is no God or force directing me in this world it is my ability to impart my will and through energy and effort get the things i want. That isnt to say I dont understand spirituality and superstition its just without proof i prefer to think its all me. A quick example is I started collecting gemstones and they all have spiritual aspects which i study too because its part of the whole thing... not my belief but one should be well rounded.

It is my belief that science and knowledge is the only true path in life. I respect those with beliefs and even though I do not believe in God and think religion only holds people back I never say that in company of mixed beliefs. I understand its purpose to those who do not know where to turn or wish to explain something quickly it is however fairy tales to me. Should there actually be something other then rotting in the ground when we die (fully believe that is our fate) I will simply tell whomever claims to have created me that they cannot be surprised or punish me for being who i am as i am only following something in me that I cant explain, something there from the beginning. I didnt choose to study the world and view everything from a scientific view, its literally always been who i am.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Thanks for the input, szuko. One question though.

Luck is me simply imposing my will on the universe causing it to bend in my favor, if I continue to expend energy on something eventually what i want to happen will happen.

How did you come to this conclusion if there's no clear scientific consensus on whether that works or not? A much simpler and logical explanation is based on the many biases a human's mind is usually prone to, especially confirmation bias.