When it comes to Science...

[Ramscha]

When it comes to science being the bolster for claims or arguments it is necessary to keep a critical eye and reason regarding the "facts" it should support.

Since it is not uncommon to find confrontation of "the science" vs. "the occult" or supportive claims for this and that in posts on this and other forums I wanted to provide a nice graphic which I think that might be come in handy:



Photo credit: Andy Brunning

Ramscha

[Desecrated]

I've lived long enough to see science change. Some thing that was absolutely certain 30 years ago are now considered to be complete bullshit.

I'm not saying that all science is bad, but when ever I hear a scientific theory, I always want to add "for now" at the end of it.

[Deathquota]

Bad science is oftentimes biased in part due to corporate funding. Obviously sensationalism and the media just make it worse. I find that scientific researchers who are specialists rarely fall into this trap. The deal is, natural science doesn't really concern itself much with how I live my life. I think I saw an article one time attempting to state that the "spiritual but not religious" category is full of mentally ill people.

[EternalReturn]

I understand that there are paradigms, theories and hypotheses. In conjunction, I will agree with paradigm in most cases, lot less concerning theories and play with possibilities when it comes to hypothesis.

I'm glad that I had some scientific tutoring, but I see that not everyone agrees with my perspective on science. That is evident in relation scientist - engineers -humanities. Reading from left to right would be the priority of importance concerning the present state of the world.

Corporate funding is a lot less of a problem than this patronizing between "real science" and everything else. That is my opinion, of course.

[Ramscha]

Corporate funding is a lot less of a problem than this patronizing between "real science" and everything else. That is my opinion, of course.

True enough.
It can happen that the scientific community and part of the specialist press behave like the inquisition on whitches hunt, that didn't change since the times of Galilei.

I also expierenced the problem myself when it comes to taking the research you do seriously and grant funding (if you are a noname, then looking for funding is like begging on the streets if you have no super hot topic). Who would found research on the sexual behaviour of Lion's mane jellyfish in the indian ocean when there are no trials on anti-cancer drugs at offer (just an invented example)?

But that is the community, what I was going on about were the results in their publication and applied interpretation.
But exposing 10 frogs to lethal doses of thiomersal (used for conservation in vaccines though its use is controversal) and then claiming that it leads to death and a bunch of diseases in humans though docends of human trials with actual doses used in vaccines and slightly higher (not lethal doses, lethal means deadly, of course it leads to death then, that is why it is means "lethal") gave enough material to neglect those claims years ago, that is "bad science" (this was not an invented example, that actually happened http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 2300016123 ).

Well, I guess we could go on and on about this though my main objective was to share this in order to give a "rough" tool to help in interpretation and use of such information (though of course this graphic is not the last instance [crazy] ).

Ramscha

[EternalReturn]

But exposing 10 frogs to lethal doses of thiomersal (used for conservation in vaccines though its use is controversal) and then claiming that it leads to death and a bunch of diseases in humans though docends of human trials with actual doses used in vaccines and slightly higher (not lethal doses, lethal means deadly, of course it leads to death then, that is why it is means "lethal") gave enough material to neglect those claims years ago, that is "bad science" (this was not an invented example, that actually happened http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 2300016123 ).

What the actual fuck [lol] what do they teach these people nowadays?

On topic: it is really good to have such thorough infographic saved on the computer or even printed, an put on the wall. There is a lot of bad science nowadays, as you said it.

[Draco20]

I think I saw an article one time attempting to state that the "spiritual but not religious" category is full of mentally ill people.

Let alone the fact that most scientists consider spirituality as nothing more than a mental phenomenon. It can only be superstitions, wishful thinking or fantasies since consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain. So spiritual experiences are caused by physical processes in the brain, end of the story. There cannot be any ''concrete reality'' to them in the first place. That's the prevailing materialistic paradigm in the scientific community.

[Deathquota]

Corporate funding is a lot less of a problem than this patronizing between "real science" and everything else. That is my opinion, of course.

When I said science, I didn't automatically assume skeptical-inquiry-based critical thinking specialized physical science I guess. There are always fringe claims. Science to me is often just what people assume to be true because they think that it was studied somewhere imo. Therefore science to the average crony has never transcended superstition. There is bullshit, like the American Education system's food pyramid. I personally consider philosophy a science. Perhaps by my definition science is nothing more than raw information, just like everything that I perceive. What principles should I project into science beyond the dictionary definition for it? Science pretty much means Natural Science / Physical Science to most people I suppose.

As Friedrich Nietzsche says,

Our thoughts should grow out of our values with the same necessity as the fruit of the tree

Let alone the fact that most scientists consider spirituality as nothing more than a mental phenomenon. It can only be superstitions, wishful thinking or fantasies since consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain. So spiritual experiences are caused by physical processes in the brain, end of the story. There cannot be any ''concrete reality'' to them in the first place. That's the prevailing materialistic paradigm in the scientific community.

what does concrete reality mean? Does it satisfy the correspondence theory of truth? Should it?

[Draco20]

what does concrete reality mean? Does it satisfy the correspondence theory of truth? Should it?

Meaning that a spiritual experience simply cannot have any objective reality according the materialistic paradigm, like the event of me typing this message. Since your experience is a result of brain processes and so a mental phenomenon, it would be ludicrous to consider it 'real' or 'truthful' since it can only be illusions, misinterpreations or hallucinations, well, distortion of the material world in one's mind, according to quite a few scientists.

[EternalReturn]

Corporate funding is a lot less of a problem than this patronizing between "real science" and everything else. That is my opinion, of course.

When I said science, I didn't automatically assume skeptical-inquiry-based critical thinking specialized physical science I guess. There are always fringe claims. Science to me is often just what people assume to be true because they think that it was studied somewhere imo. Therefore science to the average crony has never transcended superstition. There is bullshit, like the American Education system's food pyramid. I personally consider philosophy a science. Perhaps by my definition science is nothing more than raw information, just like everything that I perceive. What principles should I project into science beyond the dictionary definition for it? Science pretty much means Natural Science / Physical Science to most people I suppose.

As Friedrich Nietzsche says,

Our thoughts should grow out of our values with the same necessity as the fruit of the tree

That's exactly my point. I have no idea how many time have I tried to explain to someone that he can merely believe in results. He has not directly experienced the measurement, experiment or whatnot. so he must believe that these are true. You have methodology yes, but if it were perfect, what's the use of peer review?

I also believe in philosophy being a science, and I can agree with you there. Science is categorized information with its distinct methodology, IMO.

[Clockwork Ghost]

what does concrete reality mean? Does it satisfy the correspondence theory of truth? Should it?

Meaning that a spiritual experience simply cannot have any objective reality according the materialistic paradigm, like the event of me typing this message. Since your experience is a result of brain processes and so a mental phenomenon, it would be ludicrous to consider it 'real' or 'truthful' since it can only be illusions, misinterpreations or hallucinations, well, distortion of the material world in one's mind, according to quite a few scientists.

Five scientific geniuses who also believed in magick:

1. Galilaeo - Galilaeo practiced Astrology, and taught it to medical school students at the University of Padua.

2. Isaac Newton - Newton spent half his life obsessed with Alchemy. He actually became Warden of the Mint in 1700 - the Royal Mint being responsible for the manufacture of all coins used by the United Kingdom.

3. Tycho Brahe - Brahe created and built tiny robots (in the 16th century) to convince locals that he had magical powers. This wasnt just a deception however, Brahe believed he was a sorcerer, and publically lectured against anyone who believed that Astrology was fake. Brahe became so synonymous with magick that an entire calendar of magickal days was made in his honour.

4. Carl Linnaeus - Linnaeus devoted a whole section of his zoological tome Systema Naturae to magickal animals. This section included the Hydra, Satyrus, and the Phoenix. Although he later debunked the hydra, and considered pelicans to be mythical creatures, he claimed to have seen a troglodyte, unicorns, and believed strongly in mermaids.

5. Paracelsus - Paracelsus believed that it was possible to transmute metals using magick. He also used magick in conjunction with medicine, and believed that magick was just another science that people didn't understand.

[Draco20]

Great post Clockwork. But I guess some would say here's five great scientists that were holding supersitious beliefs. Still, I don't feel the need to agree with that.

[Clockwork Ghost]

Great post Clockwork. But I guess some would say here's five great scientists that were holding supersitious beliefs. Still, I don't feel the need to agree with that.

I'm sure in years to come, if anyone ever works out how to travel faster than the speed of light, people will say 'Albert Einstein? Genius of a man; but didn't he believe in that old superstition of mass-energy equivalence?' [grin]