Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 352 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 16 of 20 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"...attempt to confirm one's Ego."

The same prodigious humility that makes you assert that you have truth is what allows you to 'write' that sentence with a straight face.

No that would be an attempt to degrade the truth by making it personal and exclusive. Tho the truth is exclusive to those that Know the Truth rather than pretend to know thru relative idealism....
And Truth is non invasive. It doesn't force its way through free will and the choice to be ignorant of it. It is realized thru the humility of a conscious return to awareness of awareness.
Consciousness recognizing consciousness or God recognizing God.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I met this woman online who insisted she was Mary, Mother of God. She was adamant. Her incoherent babbling didn't make any less sense than your messages - and she was just as convinced she had the truth. OTOH, her conviction produced as much value to society as theosophy (both decidedly less than actual science).

Some people look at television snow and see alien messages. Others look at theosophical texts and discern truth. They're equally correct.


Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
I met this woman online who insisted she was Mary, Mother of God. She was adamant. Her incoherent babbling didn't make any less sense than your messages - and she was just as convinced she had the truth. OTOH, her conviction produced as much value to society as theosophy (both decidedly less than actual science).

Some people look at television snow and see alien messages. Others look at theosophical texts and discern truth. They're equally correct.


I've been visited by the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, both claimed to speak of the truth and their exclusivity in the knowledge of God and religion. Not unlike your speeches toward science and the exclusivity of it in its definition by what you call a scientist. You and they are alot alike. They don't make sense to me either.
It would seem we are at loggerheads..


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Not by what *I* call a scientist. What the vast majority of practicing scientists mean by the term. Why not just call your philosophy "theosophy." That way people won't be confuse it with what everyone else means by the term.

Theosophy hasn't contributed to the understanding of the genome, of the development of treatments for AIDS or an understanding of the universe. But it must have contributed *something* besides babble; otherwise, you wouldn't be so insistent that it's all scientific and such. If you are clear that you're talking theosophy then other people will recognize the inherent truth of the thing and won't confuse it with feeble science.



Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Not by what *I* call a scientist. What the vast majority of practicing scientists mean by the term. Why not just call your philosophy "theosophy." That way people won't be confuse it with what everyone else means by the term.

The "I" that has no flexibility to incorporate the many ideas surrounding an experience, isolates its self and its ideas from all other self's and their ideas.

There is a story about three blind men who would get together once a week when their families would travel into town to shop for their supplies. The families would gather in the center of town where they would leave their blind relatives to visit with each other as they went about their business.
The three would be busy chatting about whatever was of interest to them personally during the course of the previous week, sharing their experiences and catching up on the latest gossip.

One day a traveler passed through town on an elephant. The event was something to speak of since not many elephants passed through their part of the country.
The town instantly came alive with the excitement of the event. The three old men were wondering what all the excitement was about and asked some boys they heard passing by what was making everyone excited.
"“There’s an elephant passing thru the town,” one of the boys replied."

“"I'’ve never seen an elephant, nor do I know what it might look like",” said the blind man. "“Neither have we" said the other two together.”

The boys, somewhat amused that the three blind men didn’'t know what an elephant looked like immediately offered to take them to the elephant, to let them experience for themselves what an elephant might look like.
The boys being somewhat mischievous thought it might be fun to play a trick on the three men when they arrived, so when they came to the elephant they took them each to a different part of the elephant to feel the elephant and experience it.

The first was led to the Leg where he felt around the rough skin, and upward to what seemed a gigantic immovable object firmly planted in the ground.
He was then led back to his friends who listened to his description of a beast, “"So big and solid, it was like a Tree standing firmly in the ground."
”
The second man was then led up to the front of the elephant where he began exploring the long trunk of the beast, the elephant being uncomfortable with the grasping hands of the man twitched his trunk sending the man flying to the ground. When the boy led him back to his friend he gasped in exasperation, “"This elephant is a wild snake, most unpredictable and dangerous."” The first man said to them, “"This cannot be, you cannot have touched the same beast as I."
”
Finally the third man was led to climb upon some stacked crates at the side of the elephants head and his hands guided to the ear. As he explored the huge ear he exclaimed, "“Finally, I have solved this mystery, neither of my two friends have accurately described this elephant for it is like a giant living carpet."
”
The boys thoroughly amused with themselves led the men back to the square where they argued over which description and experience was the correct one.

For the next few weeks the men relentlessly argued over the differences in their experience of the elephant.

Then one day, a man who had a reputation of being a wise sage and a great healer happened to be passing thru town and caught wind of the arguing blind men.
He listened to their arguments of the elephant, each describing the different experiences and refusing to acknowledge any truth in either of their friend’s experience.

The sage then stepped into the conversation and introduced himself. The three friends having heard of the sage asked if he could settle this dispute once and for all.
He then said to them, "”Your blindness far exceeds your physical senses, it is not your eyes that do not see but your beliefs in the separation of your experiences. If you were to work together to discover the truth of the elephant I would heal your eyes that you may truly see this elephant for yourselves."
”
The sage promised to return the following month to see if they could come to any new conclusions regarding their experiences of the elephant.

Again in the weeks to follow, much to the irritation of their respective families, they talked incessantly about their experiences of the elephant, trying to solve the mystery of their differences.
Finally one of the three men remembering the snickering boys as they were each led to the elephant, suggested that maybe they had been misled to experience different parts of the elephant and neither had quite grasped the entirety of the elephant at all.
This started the men to thinking about incorporating their experiences, and to piece together the mystery of this beast.
The first man said, “Perhaps this tree that I had wrapped myself around was only a leg of this huge beast, and the snake one of many tentacles of this hideous creature, and the huge living carpet, a wing or some other appendage.”
And so the contemplation continued until the sage would arrive.

At the end of the month the sage returned with an elephant and to see if the three blind men had come to any conclusions in their quest for truth.
He went to the square where the men were waiting anxiously for his return and greeted them on his approach.

"Have you come to a conclusion regarding the argument of what the elephant looks like?" he asked.

"We have come to the conclusion that each of our experiences is valid. Even though our experiences and descriptions are different we have come to think that we have each a piece of the puzzle. We think we were misled by the boys who led us to different parts of this huge beast to deliberately set us apart in our experiences of the elephant. Together we think we can get closer to the truth rather than separately, but unfortunately we have only had one brief experience of the beast and without further examination would not be able to accurately solve the puzzle."”

“"Very good,"” said the sage, "“If you would please follow me I think we can put an end to this mystery.”" He then led the three blind me to the elephant.
There he stopped and produced a salve which he administered to the eyes of each of the three blind men.
Within a few short minutes they each exclaimed that they were beginning to see shadow and light. Following that, the vision of the elephant became clear to each of them and they saw for the first time the huge leg that the first man had described as a tree, the long twisting trunk which was first thought to be a snake, and the third man exclaimed, "“Look, look, the carpet is the beasts ear!"
”
The sage turned to each of them and said, "“Each man is born with the senses to experience life, yet we each will experience it as we wish to experience it. God and his creation are not set in any stone or single experience but lives in all experiences. To fully understand God's creation one must not exclude any part, or the experience of someone who does not see or experience the same as another, one must integrate all of the experiences or parts of the whole in everyone’s experience to see the whole more clearly."

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Theosophy hasn't contributed to the understanding of the genome, of the development of treatments for AIDS or an understanding of the universe. But it must have contributed *something* besides babble; otherwise, you wouldn't be so insistent that it's all scientific and such. If you are clear that you're talking theosophy then other people will recognize the inherent truth of the thing and won't confuse it with feeble science.


If you insist on boxing the universe up into definitions, or if you insist on taking the infinite possibilities of discovery and isolate them from you because you don't like what others see or say. You will miss something that might show you the way.

There is a another story a Doctor once told me.
Years ago there was a medical convention. A large group of doctors got together to discuss new discoveries from all around the world. One man spoke up and said he had some ideas regarding the prevention of cervical cancer. By taking cell samples and applying a certain process one might recognize characteristics within the cells that would eventually develop into cancer.
The man was laughed out of the convention by his peers.
That man was George Papanicolaou (1883-1962), a Greek-born physician and scientist who moved to the U.S. In 1923. He developed the pap smear which is used by doctors all over the world today to detect cancerous cells in the uterus.

Just 'cause you don't like the name or idea someone else comes up with, don't mean it's not gonna fit into your experiences or answer your questions.
Prejudice deludes the greatest of thinkers.

. Scientific Research Demonstrates the Supremacy of the Mind.

How does our mind make us sick? There has been some fascinating research over the past fifteen years which shows just how closely connected our minds are to our bodies: our habitual thoughts determine the state of our health and even our longevity.

One of the earliest and most interesting studies was performed on some rabbits at Ohio University in the seventies.
The scientists were attempting to prove the relationship between a toxic, high cholesterol diet and hardening of the arteries.
They thought that if they fed the rabbits' high cholesterol food, they should logically develop high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries and the other symptoms we have learned to associate with heart disease, which is still the largest killer in the Western world.
The experiment was going along very well, with most of the bunnies developing the expected symptoms, except for one group of rabbits that were not having the expected results. The scientists just couldn't understand it -- they were feeding the rabbits in this group the same high cholesterol food, but the rabbits just weren't developing any of the predicted symptoms. No high blood pressure. No hardening of the arteries. No hypertension. Nothing.
Fortunately for the study, and unfortunately for the rabbits, the technician who was feeding that particular group of rabbits fell ill. Almost immediately, her rabbits started developing the expected symptoms! Naturally the scientists were curious as to why and asked her what she had done differently.
"Why nothing," she said, "I fed the rabbits the food as you told me to. I took them out of their cages, held them, stroked them, and sang to them, fed them. Wasn't this right?"
It was the same food, but the rabbits' minds turned the high cholesterol food into other channels, which protected their health! The scientists were amazed. They thought they were studying hardening of the arteries; they were really studying the effects of love. They tried this over and over again and found that rabbits that were loved simply wouldn't fall ill as readily.
Isn't this amazing? And this was just rabbits, not even people! How can love change the effect of food?

So the moral is: if you're going to eat Big Macs, sit on your boyfriend's lap or if you are a boy, have your girlfriend sit on your lap while you're eating it.

Our minds control affect our bodies. You've probably heard of the placebo effect? 30% of patients can be given a chalk tablet and told that they will get well and they do get well. There is also a nocebo effect. A physician tells a patient, "I'm very sorry to tell you, Mrs. Jones, but your breast cancer has metastasized throughout your internal organs; you'll be dead in six weeks." If Mrs. Jones believes her doctor, her body will respond and kill her.

For decades, surgeons assumed that if you were unconscious during surgery, it didn't matter what was said in the operating room. But it was found that what is said affects the likelihood of recovery! If they open you up and say, "Oh, look at that, it's worse than we thought -- " then your chance of recovery goes way down. The more positive the surgeon's remarks, the greater the chance of recovery. The power of the mind is awesome.

In a study of four hundred spontaneous remissions of cancer interpreted by Elmer and Alyce Green of the Menninger Clinic there was only one factor in common -- every person changed his or her attitude before the remission occurred, fundamentally changed his or her way of thinking, became more hopeful, courageous, positive. They somehow broke through the collective consciousness, through their self-destructive beliefs and programs and changed their minds on a fundamental level, deep inside. And so they were "miraculously" cured.

The collective belief system extends deeply into our minds. Did you know that our society has even given us a standard time to die? I'm not kidding! There is a day and a time when it is more likely you will die than any other? Do you know when that is?
9 AM on Monday morning. Why is that? It just seems easier to die than face another week of this horrible job! This is a truly remarkable achievement of our species. Presumably no other species recognizes which day Monday is. The power of the mind is everything.

Some scientists at the University of Miami a few years ago heard of the rabbit study in Ohio and decided to do an experiment to see if this effect might also hold true for humans. They decided to do a study on preemies -- premature babies -- because in intensive care, they are very expensive and the rate of survival is not that high. What are we, seventeenth in the world for infant mortality? Not so hot. So three times a day for fifteen minutes, wearing rubber gloves, the technicians stroked the tiny babies inside their intensive care units. They didn't call it "stroking," of course; they called it "tactile kinesthetic stimulation," which is the Orwellian term for stroking. God forbid we should call it love!
These scientists concluded that tactile kinesthetic stimulation is cost effective, for these preemies gained an average of 49% more weight per day, which meant that they were discharged from intensive care an average of five days earlier for a saving of $3,000 per admission. The amazing thing to me about this study is that it ever had to be done! How could our doctors and scientists have become so absurdly divorced from common sense to have to do a study to prove this, a fact that any mother knows? My heart especially grieves for the preemies in the control group at the University of Miami who didn't have the good fortune to experience tactile kinesthetic stimulation. But the good news is that most hospitals are embracing this information and are permitting more contact with newborns. Physical contact for newborns is vital to ensure proper development and growth.

Dr. Herbert Specter at the National Institute performed another study that illustrates this mind-body connection even more graphically for Health -- this one on some mice. Dr. Specter divided the mice into two groups. One group was the control group; he gave a potent immune-system-stimulating drug called Poly I-C to the other. Poly I-C increases the number of killer T-cells in the immune system. When he gave the drug to the mice, he also exposed them to the smell of camphor. It is a pungent-smelling material that most drug stores sell in the form of little white cubes. People think it helps with congestion and breathing problems. It is impossible to forget the scent once you've smelled it. It's the active ingredient in Campho-Phenique. Dr. Specter treated the mice for a few weeks with the Poly I-C and the camphor, and then took the drug away and just let them smell the camphor. Do you know what happened? Their immune systems were still stimulated -- they had become mighty mice -- no bacteria could make them sick, no tumors would develop if they were exposed to cancer- causing agents.
Another group tried this the opposite way at the University of Rochester. They took rats and administered a potent immune-system-destroying drug, cyclophosphamide -- cyclophosphamide is used in organ transplants, it keeps the body from rejecting the new organ -- and at the same time gave them a taste of saccharine-sweetened water, substituting this for camphor as a neutral agent. After doing this, a number of times, they took the drug away and just allowed the rats to taste the water. With just the smallest taste of the sweetened water, they would fall sick, develop tuberculosis or pneumonia from the slightest intrusion of bacteria or develop cancer from a very slight exposure to a carcinogen. Do you see what's going on here? The two groups were interpreting a completely neutral agent differently.
This shows how much our interpretation of reality influences our experience of reality. If we have learned to associate bad health or unhappiness with our experience of life, it becomes a very difficult habit to break.

Think of a set of twins. Both have identical backgrounds, both have the same parents, the same heredity, the same environment; they are treated virtually the same. What happens? One grows up to be successful and happy, has a wonderful family, lives to a ripe old age. The other becomes an alcoholic and is dead by thirty-six. What causes the difference? The interpretation of reality. Our society may have deeply programmed condemnation and judgment into us, and we may have learned to look at all of life and say, "Oh, bad, the glass is half empty." But it is just as easy to say, "Oh, good, the glass is half full." And that is completely within our power.

It is the mind that is dominant. In Massachusetts, a group of scientists were studying the risk factors for heart disease because about 50% of those who contract this fatal killer didn't fit any of the known profiles: they didn't smoke, they didn't have a high cholesterol diet, they didn't even have hypertension, and yet they had a myocardial infarction, a heart attack, and died. Why?

These scientists found that they could ask two very simple questions to determine whether a person was likely to have heart problems. Do you know what these two questions were? First, "Do you like your job?" If you could say, "Yes," to this, your risk of heart attack falls by 50%. And second, "Are you happy?" And again a, "Yes," answer drops your risk of heart attack by another 50%. What is the difference between health and disease? It seems more and more it is determined by our thoughts, our beliefs, the way we use our minds.
Another study showed that if you do happen to have a heart attack, your chance of recovery is virtually 100% if you are happily married. This was found much more important than diet, exercise or smoking. The mind controls the body, not the other way around. The old thinking was that the body was dominant and the mind was a ghost in the machine, a fantasy. But if you take the body away, the mind remains! This was confirmed by Karl Lashley, a pioneer in neurophysiology. He trained rats to run in a maze, and then began to systematically remove their brain tissue. He kept taking out more and more and found that their brains worked just fine. He took out as much as 90% and the rats still could run the maze!

The average lifespan of a Doctor is about 57 years, yet we have given these doctors the authority over our health.

Theosophy has been called many things. Within those many things are known the above basics of the influence of belief, opinion and idealism of the ego.
Science is responsible for every mechanical and medical advancement within civilization that has contributed to the poisoning of the mind and the earth. With every question that is answered so does it also create a dozen more questions.

Science without a heart is like a mind without conscience. Science without religion is the same thing.
There is dogma in religion and science.

Examples of self proclaimed deities and generalization regarding theosophy are all based on prejudice and small thinking. People taste a bad apple once and give up apples for life because of the limited perceptions of one idea they follow.
It is good to be wise about the choices we make to avoid stamping prejudice and narrow mindedness into our belief systems.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The odds that you're going to show anyone the way, except by way of negative example, are infinitesimal.

"Science is responsible for every mechanical and medical advancement within civilization that has contributed to the poisoning of the mind and the earth. "

Good. It's pompous crock, but we've at least established your personal opinion of science. Wonder if you'll feel the same way when your kid needs an antibiotic.

Despite your comic book understanding of science that drives you to hate the genuine article, you nevertheless want to associate your cult with science, because most people know that science is successful. Down deep, even you know it. But doing real science is too hard. You have to like, learn math and stuff. Blathering obscurantist bullcrap is a lot easier.



Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
The odds that you're going to show anyone the way, except by way of negative example, are infinitesimal.

The reasons you give, in exemplifying science as greater than Theosphical exploration is, and has been, by negative example of anything other than your beliefs and opinion.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Science is responsible for every mechanical and medical advancement within civilization that has contributed to the poisoning of the mind and the earth. "

Good. It's pompous crock, but we've at least established your personal opinion of science. Wonder if you'll feel the same way when your kid needs an antibiotic.

No, you've decidedly established my personal opinion of science. I'm talking about the reality that man is not infallable, and science is tainted by the beliefs, inadequacies, opinions and shortfalls of mans conscious morality.
For all of the great medical discoveries, there has been a by-product of medical waste created by the industry. For all of the chemicals and discoveries in chemical applications for convenience, there is pollution of groundwater, food and air that we as humans depend on for life. Man has not shown the ability to yet create itself without equally proving that it can destroy itself in the process. Science within your terms has not shown that it can instill moral character or conscious awareness.

I think we can all thank human invention and scientific endeavor for the steady flow of antibiotics that come from out of our tap water. And as more of us piss out the antibiotics we take, the more we can guarantee our children a prescription ready made in their food and water.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Despite your comic book understanding of science that drives you to hate the genuine article, you nevertheless want to associate your cult with science, because most people know that science is successful. Down deep, even you know it. But doing real science is too hard. You have to like, learn math and stuff. Blathering obscurantist bullcrap is a lot easier.

Taking into consideration the need of the ego to be infallible and the fear of being wrong, I can understand your rant, as well as the lack of comprehension in this discussion.
It is common to emotionally react, often easier to lose perspective in personal defense than it is to think and be objective in a conversation when you are emotionally attached to a belief.




I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"No, you've decidedly established my personal opinion of science."

"I'm talking about the reality that man is not infallable, and science is tainted by the beliefs, inadequacies, opinions and shortfalls of mans conscious morality."
Actually, you said a lot more than that. You did indeed state your opinion of science, but have tried to state it as if it were some objective truth.

"Taking into consideration the need of the ego to be infallible and the fear of being wrong,"
I relish finding out that I'm wrong - hence my user name. I look forward to being educated by people who know more than I do, who are smarter than I am, who have worked on some particular problem or some general problem for extended periods of time. I experience this very often - nearly every day of my life. Sometimes I experience it on this forum, but not so much of late.

There's a lot more to being objective than simply talking in third person. There's a lot more to understanding than simply spewing intricate nonsense. There is a thing called modern science. And you could actually learn some of it, if you were to pick up a few books. Pick a branch - any branch. Drink deeply. Eschew the shallow draughts.


Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"No, you've decidedly established my personal opinion of science."

"I'm talking about the reality that man is not infallable, and science is tainted by the beliefs, inadequacies, opinions and shortfalls of mans conscious morality."

Actually, you said a lot more than that. You did indeed state your opinion of science, but have tried to state it as if it were some objective truth.

I made reference to the notion that science is linked to mans idea of humanity. Within the extremist point of view where dogma takes over sensibility and religion is created with a label, pasted on a point of view.
Your point of view regarding science would fit comfortably into that idea.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Taking into consideration the need of the ego to be infallible and the fear of being wrong,"
I relish finding out that I'm wrong - hence my user name. I look forward to being educated by people who know more than I do, who are smarter than I am, who have worked on some particular problem or some general problem for extended periods of time. I experience this very often - nearly every day of my life. Sometimes I experience it on this forum, but not so much of late.

There's a lot more to being objective than simply talking in third person. There's a lot more to understanding than simply spewing intricate nonsense. There is a thing called modern science. And you could actually learn some of it, if you were to pick up a few books. Pick a branch - any branch. Drink deeply. Eschew the shallow draughts.

There is a lot more to learning than decidedly denying everything that is not of the mainstream democratic authority. Stretching the mind in a visionary fashion, learning something that cannot be learned from a book, and experiencing something within yourself that is so diverse that it could be twisted by any level of the imagination but still relevant to all of life. The kind of thing that books are written about and interpreted as intricate nonsense by those who wish to remain complacent and within the box of belief, be they scientific or religious.

Rather than sipping only from the shallow draughts of belief in a constantly evolving point of view in theory and application, one could drink deeply from the unbounded absolute, which is constantly supporting everything in creation, including scientific/religious belief.
There, one discovers ones Self, and the meaning of life. From that foundation of experience science becomes supportive of evolution with a greater sense of being a part of all life rather than outside of it. Every thought feeling and action is always in accord with every one, and every belief, rather than distracted by the concerns in the differences and judgments of personal opinion and egoic bigotry.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"There is a lot more to learning than decidedly denying everything that is not of the mainstream democratic authority."

There is a lot more to science that just criticizing without understanding. If all of science were proven wrong tomorrow, theosophy would still be religion and not science, and your posts would still be nonsense.

Better to knowledgeably agree with the majority than to disagree in ignorance. None of your rambling rants, to include the theosophy ads, indicate even a remote understanding of science.


Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"There is a lot more to learning than decidedly denying everything that is not of the mainstream democratic authority."

There is a lot more to science that just criticizing without understanding. If all of science were proven wrong tomorrow, theosophy would still be religion and not science, and your posts would still be nonsense.

Better to knowledgeably agree with the majority than to disagree in ignorance. None of your rambling rants, to include the theosophy ads, indicate even a remote understanding of science.


The majority once thought the world was flat. Today the majority is lost/hidden within the voice of the media, which professes to speak for the majority along with the few like yourself, educated within the system who would like to represent themselves as that authoritative majority.

None of my posts were to indicate a distinctive measure of my knowledge of science, that would not be possible for you to know since we haven't really discussed scientific knowledge. What we have discussed is the label of science, and theosophy.
So far we haven't gotten much further than discussing your feelings for either label and by doing so, demonstrating what an opinion is.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"The majority once thought the world was flat. "
It has been a very long time since any person of science thought the world was flat. In fact, it was scientists and mathematicians who showed otherwise - and the religionists who insisted otherwise.

The majority also once thought that most people have legs. In this, the majority was and is right. Statements aren't true or false based on what the majority maintain - especially when the majority includes people with firm convictions about things of which they are entirely ignorant.

"None of my posts were to indicate a distinctive measure of my knowledge of science,"
And yet your lack of knowledge was revealed!

"What we have discussed is the label of science"
There are the facts and laws and theories of science and then there is the process of science - the principles upon which it operates. What is science is not determined by the former, but by the latter - the principles. And that is what determines whether something gets the label of science. The fact that you ignore this or are unaware of it or just plain don't see the relevance is unimportant. Despite your best attempts to conceal the source and motive of your convictions, your contempt of actual science has been revealed.

Obscurantists despise the respect that science has rightfully earned in society and they envy it. As I have said in this forum several times before. They use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their cults:

The first is to show how, after all, their own cultish beliefs are supported by science - indeed their beliefs augment and improve upon science.

In the other, they attempt to portray, amply, and exaggerate the failings of science.

"What we have discussed is the label of science"
You can't establish the correct label of a thing without determining whether the label is correctly applied. You don't understand what the label means - and so you don't have any problem at all applying it to your cult.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
TT

Quote:
along with the few like yourself, educated within the system who would like to represent themselves as that authoritative majority.

None of my posts were to indicate a distinctive measure of my knowledge of science, that would not be possible for you to know since we haven't really discussed scientific knowledge. What we have discussed is the label of science, and theosophy.
So far we haven't gotten much further than discussing your feelings


I believe that you hit upon something here , your "educated within the system" seems to cover most Practicing scientist
view concerning the subject !!

in my opinion evoloution is no more a science than computer science is a science , in computer science - programming .. is no more than a set of instructions that are fed into a computers memory by a program and the computer runs the set of instructions to perform certain desired opperations.

basicaly computers and the programming of computers and their peripherials are no more than a few machines that you need to know how to communicate with and how to let them communicate with each other ...

computer science is more of a language not a science.

evolution likewise is a set of instructions that define how
the species have changed over the milenia.

the only problem is that evolution seems to think the computer
evolved from a grain of silicone that just appeared all over the world back in the cambrian explosion and it programed itself to perform the different task needed ... LOL










3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"The majority once thought the world was flat. "
It has been a very long time since any person of science thought the world was flat. In fact, it was scientists and mathematicians who showed otherwise - and the religionists who insisted otherwise.

But the theosophists (Adepts) knew, even before the scientists discovered it wasn't flat, all while the religionists were arguing with the scientists over issues of definition and belief.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
The majority also once thought that most people have legs. In this, the majority was and is right. Statements aren't true or false based on what the majority maintain - especially when the majority includes people with firm convictions about things of which they are entirely ignorant.

And based on your comments made previously in another thread: ...errors creep in at all levels and in all branches. A huge part of science is being able to find its errors - the fact that it is self-correcting.
There is some deceit in science. There are also things that are just plain wrong.
We might agree that science as you would like to define it, is not a majority but a system living within a majority. Self correcting in that what it applies itself to incorrectly, it may be ignorant of. Such might be the case regarding any application to something that cannot be disproved by science, regardless of whether scientists decide to distance themselves from it because it doesn't fit in to their scientific box.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"None of my posts were to indicate a distinctive measure of my knowledge of science,"
And yet your lack of knowledge was revealed!

In your mind, you determined I don't qualify to belong to your definition of ideals, that is clear.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"What we have discussed is the label of science"
There are the facts and laws and theories of science and then there is the process of science - the principles upon which it operates. What is science is not determined by the former, but by the latter - the principles. And that is what determines whether something gets the label of science. The fact that you ignore this or are unaware of it or just plain don't see the relevance is unimportant.
Good at least we have narrowed your determination to a personal opinion rather than any truth in whether I agree with the principles and how I see them apply to both science and theosophy.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Despite your best attempts to conceal the source and motive of your convictions, your contempt of actual science has been revealed.

I have no contempt for science.. that'd be your delusion not mine.


Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Obscurantists despise the respect that science has rightfully earned in society and they envy it. As I have said in this forum several times before. They use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their cults:

The first is to show how, after all, their own cultish beliefs are supported by science - indeed their beliefs augment and improve upon science.

In the other, they attempt to portray, amply, and exaggerate the failings of science. Obscurantists despise the respect that science has rightfully earned in society and they envy it. As I have said in this forum several times before. They use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their cults:


Those that would like to dogmatically isolate science from inquiry, despise the social interest that Theosophy reflects in society, and they envy it. After all when you think about the idea that over 90% of the population believes there is a God of some sort, by your determination science should without proof that God does not exist listen to the majority.

Fanatic isolationalists who call themselves scientists, use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their scientific beliefs against spiritual inquiry:

The first is to show how, their own cultish beliefs are scientific - indeed their beliefs attempt to nullify any experience one might have of their God by testimony that there is no scientific process or instrument that can prove a God of any experience exists or does not exist.

In the other, they attempt to portray, amply, and exaggerate the failings of Theosophy.


Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"What we have discussed is the label of science"

You can't establish the correct label of a thing without determining whether the label is correctly applied. You don't understand what the label means - and so you don't have any problem at all applying it to your cult.


by the very definition of Science:
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


Theosophy as I know and experience it, regardless of your input in the form of sweeping generalities applied to superstition and projection, is a science.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Dictionaries supply very generic definitions of terms. That's why specialists use subject specific dictionaries - medical dictionaries, law dictionaries, science dictionaries, etc.

On the other hand, if one's motive is to confuse rather than to elucidate, it makes a lot of sense to use as broad a definition as possible in the hopes that some prospective subject of indoctrination might conflate the various definitions.

"Fanatic isolationalists who call themselves scientists,"
You incorrectly apply the term "isolationist" here. Most scientists recognize there is a relationship between science and society and many scientists, philosophers, and historians try to understand and clarify that relationship. The isolationism that you refer to is one where someone from outside of science is attempting to confuse the subject matter by changing the definition of science so that it might include a support for their particular cult.



Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Dictionaries supply very generic definitions of terms. That's why specialists use subject specific dictionaries - medical dictionaries, law dictionaries, science dictionaries, etc.

On the other hand, if one's motive is to confuse rather than to elucidate, it makes a lot of sense to use as broad a definition as possible in the hopes that some prospective subject of indoctrination might conflate the various definitions.

So labeling self inquiry as a cult, a scientist wishing to leave the broad spectrum and write his own dictionary describing himself and his personal ideals, would wish to make his prejudice specifically known by taking liberties in including his emotional deficiencies and label a person or a persons ideas as being specific to his determined category..I get your drift.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Fanatic isolationalists who call themselves scientists,"
You incorrectly apply the term "isolationist" here. Most scientists recognize there is a relationship between science and society and many scientists, philosophers, and historians try to understand and clarify that relationship. The isolationism that you refer to is one where someone from outside of science is attempting to confuse the subject matter by changing the definition of science so that it might include a support for their particular cult.
No, I believe I applied it quite correctly.
You say: most scientists recognize there is a relationship between science and society and many scientists, philosophers, and historians try to understand and clarify that relationship.

A good scientist then would be intelligent enough and without prejudice to include history and philosophy within their field rather than to operate without the influence and to isolate themselves from those influences labeling them cults.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"So labeling self inquiry as a cult, a scientist wishing to leave the broad spectrum and write his own dictionary describing himself and his personal ideals"
Nonsense. Didn't say that. Can't be reasonably inferred from what I said.


"A good scientist then would be intelligent enough and without prejudice to include history and philosophy"
A good scientist would know the limitations of actual science. The opinion of people who are not remotely engaged in actual science regarding what is or what is not "good science" isn't relevant.

"isolate themselves "
A central method of theosophy appears to be the practiced, systematic, and meticulous abuse of language.



Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 03/10/09 06:17 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"So labeling self inquiry as a cult, a scientist wishing to leave the broad spectrum and write his own dictionary describing himself and his personal ideals"
Nonsense. Didn't say that. Can't be reasonably inferred from what I said.

I would think a scientist wouldn't reasonably infer that someone who is motivated toward self inquiry would be labeled as cultist and make sweeping generalities towards self inquiry as being limited to superstition and delusions the way you have.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"A good scientist then would be intelligent enough and without prejudice to include history and philosophy"
A good scientist would know the limitations of actual science. The opinion of people who are not remotely engaged in actual science regarding what is or what is not "good science" isn't relevant.

If you never really understood the nature of self exploration and the thousands of years of documentation toward that endeavor I would call you a man of limitation. If that is the limitation you refer to in science I can relate.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"isolate themselves "
A central method of theosophy appears to be the practiced, systematic, and meticulous abuse of language.


Ah, the appearance of being a victim rather than a creator of your own world experience is the hallmark of ignorance in theosophy. Ignorance is the meticulous abuse of labels and identity due to the mis-comprehension of reality or the inability to see and hear with a clear intellect. It always separates ones self from everything.

Science.. "...errors creep in at all levels and in all branches. A huge part of science is being able to find its errors - the fact that it is self-correcting.
There is some deceit in science. There are also things that are just plain wrong."


Perhaps your interpretations are just plain wrong.. Self correction would require some small amount of humility with the ability to recognize the truth in contrast to error. You seem intent on proving a point of view regarding how specialized and righteous science is, while labeling anything other, (in this particular conversation) that would fit within your scientific determination, as cult-ish.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"I would think a scientist wouldn't reasonably infer that someone who is motivated toward self inquiry would be labeled as cultist "
1. not everyone who says they are "motivated towards self inquiry" is in reality.
2. even if it were true, that's not the reason you are referred to as a cultist.

"If you never really understood the nature of self exploration and the thousands of years of documentation toward that endeavor I would call you a man of limitation."
Once again you demonstrate a profound ignorance of science. The limitations of modern science are those things which delimit the scope of what can adequately be addressed by it. The rest of the stuff might actually be unknowable. (Pretending to know things counts in theosophy, but not in science.)

"the appearance of being a victim rather than a creator of your own world experience "
Change of subject. Never said anything about being a victim. Never hinted at it. Nor can it be reasonably inferred from any post I have made.

"Ignorance is the meticulous abuse of labels"
There is no end of your abuse of language. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Abuse is intentional misrepresentation, which is the fundamental mode of operation of theosophy.

"Self correction would require some small amount of humility"
Humility would require someone actually know something about a subject (science) before trying to hijack a forum dedicated to its discussion.



Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"I would think a scientist wouldn't reasonably infer that someone who is motivated toward self inquiry would be labeled as cultist "
1. not everyone who says they are "motivated towards self inquiry" is in reality.
2. even if it were true, that's not the reason you are referred to as a cultist.

Oh? Please enlighten me by splitting more hair.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"If you never really understood the nature of self exploration and the thousands of years of documentation toward that endeavor I would call you a man of limitation."
Once again you demonstrate a profound ignorance of science. The limitations of modern science are those things which delimit the scope of what can adequately be addressed by it. The rest of the stuff might actually be unknowable. (Pretending to know things counts in theosophy, but not in science.)


Pretending to know things in theosophy is still pretending to know.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"the appearance of being a victim rather than a creator of your own world experience "
Change of subject. Never said anything about being a victim. Never hinted at it. Nor can it be reasonably inferred from any post I have made.


Can so. I'm speaking of levels of consciousness and how one comprehends reality. The idea and experience of what one can see with the developed faculties of the physical senses, and what one can't see when the senses are underdeveloped. The evolutionary ascent of man into awareness of reality.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Ignorance is the meticulous abuse of labels"
There is no end of your abuse of language. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Abuse is intentional misrepresentation, which is the fundamental mode of operation of theosophy.


I remain convinced you have no knowledge of extrasensory perception, and no knowledge of theosophy, and as such all indications of judgment without knowledge an abusive and misrepresentation of said subject. I.E. ignorance.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Self correction would require some small amount of humility"
Humility would require someone actually know something about a subject (science) before trying to hijack a forum dedicated to its discussion.

The knowledge required to know truth and the ability to be correct would require mastery of a subject rather than some knowledge. You haven't demonstrated you have any mastery in the subject of theosophy but have hinted toward the idea that science in your opinion has with the presentation of some knowledge or idea of theosophy, determines it to be of a non scientific nature and that my approach has hijacked the thread.

Sheesh. You're a blinding light of intellectual and spiritual inspiration.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Page 16 of 20 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5