I believe that the time has come for a division of science
in order to separate the factual elements of science from the
fantasy elements of science.

simply because the fantasy elements of what is called science
today is mostly based on outright bullshit.

science has become the blind leading the soon to be blind.

I am calling for actual scientist to secede from what is
now referenced as science and forge a true science from the
ashes of what todays science has burned to the ground.

I would like to invite any of the readers of this forum
including those with goat fantasy fettishes to add their opinions concerning this dire need to restructure science
into a true science that is not based on fantasy or influenced
by monetary contribution.

a science who's focus is bound to truth not lies that are purchased.

a science that earns trust.

Shouldn't this be posted in NQS, since it doesn't concern actual science?

Bill Gill

Well, Paul are you satisfied? I just gave you the opportunity you were looking for to claim that nobody will pay any attention to your ideas, therefore we are all in a giant conspiracy.

Bill Gill

I think your right , Bill.
good point , actual science is non existent at the moment
so NQS would be the place for this thread.

since the thread is in a fantasy science discussion forum (sagg), then of course this thread belongs in the section of the forum considered to be not quite science (NQS).

it shouldn't be placed in with all the fantasy science.

I should have realized that , sry.

R2 please move this thread to the NQS forum so that it will not be tarnished with the fantasy science threads.

thank you R2 for moving this thread to the NQS forum.

now that that has been accomplished lets move on to better things.

in this universe everything is bound to physical laws.
these physical laws were written by men.
these physical laws are used as a set of tools to predict how everything in the universe works , and to predict how everything in the universe will react to other things in the universe.

these tools are physics math.

illogic has slipped in and added tools to the tool box
that are designed to give false results in order to support
a theory or theories.

these tools , are the illogical math found in
einstein's theory of relativity SR GR and QM

in physics math supports the theories

einstein's theories could not use physics math because
physics math did not , will not , never could support
the theories.

the logical thing to do was to implement new illogical math in
order to support theories that are illogical.

there is a very large number of people who agree that the use of
this illogical math is necessary even though it gives incorrect results.

destruction from within , is the goal.

science / intelligence is the target.

Congratulations Paul, it is so rare to see people correctly assign the number of the verb in phrases such as this, that I felt a comment was in order.

Bill, with the topic in mind, I would like to ask Paul:
What "very large number of people" do you have in mind?
Does this number include any scientists?
What science, or sciences, do you have in mind?
Are you a student in a science? Or an expert? What science?
================================
NB: IN THE PERSONAL MESSAGE section, groups of 2-5 can be set up.
==================
If you prefer not to go public with your responses, you can send a personal message (PM) to a group of us. My user name is Revlgking. The moderators are: Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer
===================
For a detailed paper on the questions: What is science? And how many sciences are there? Go to:
http://social-epistemology.com/2012/09/14/gregory-sandstrom-how-many-sciences-are-there/

I am impressed by your curiosity.

In a recent post I wrotePaul, was it jokingly, or was it with contempt, or scorn, that you responded: And now, seriously and with sincere curiosity, I ask in good humour: How do you choose to impress forum readers? With some answers? Or with silence?

I like multiple choice questions.

but you left out the most important answer.

Or do you think that those are personal questions?

What "very large number of people" do you have in mind?

Don't know [.... ]

Give a number [.... ]

Does this number include any scientists ? Yes [.... ] NO [.... ]

What science, or sciences, do you have in mind?

Are you a student? Yes [.... ] Or an expert? No [.... ]

Do you have science in mind? Yes [.... ] No [..... ] Don't know [..... ]

Personal questions ? Which of the above questions are too personal? Give a number [.......] All of them [.......]

Do you like to avoid questions about beliefs? Yes [.......] No, I welcome them [.......]
=====================
Feel free to ask me any question you feel is fair. I will answer them as best I can. Or I will tell you, frankly, my reasons for not doing so. Sometimes I just do not know the best answer. And I always reserve the right to be WRONG.

Rev

Do you remember several months ago when you PM'ed me
asking for my personal information?

did I reply?

I'm not sure why you ask me questions when you know ahead of time that I don't reply.

do you find it odd that I don't reply?

SOLUTION? just use your ignore button. Then, unlike TT, I will get the message, clearly.

Forums made up of people who know how to have a civilized dialogue of shared ideas are usually successful.

Unless you care to respond, for NOW, I will move on to other things, in the spirit of Agape-love and the Golden Rule to you--and to all.

That is a truely polite, enlightning and dare I say divine post Rev K.

Actually I think that the original question is an interesting one.

I think it would be correct to suggest that quite a lot (note the unscientific vagueness) of that which is regarded as scientific now was once regarded as magic or fantasy. The inexplicable is a breeding ground for story telling and and invention.

I would go further to suggest that the best scientists are those who have retained that sense of wonder and excitement that should in fact accompany discovery and knowledge.

Thank you, Orac. Now let us explore the topic.

In my opinion, there are thee kinds of science or knowledge, and all are of great value. First there are the natural sciences, which I place under the general heading: SOMATOLOGY.

1. The natural sciences For details, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science Then there are:

2. The social sciences. Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences I place these under the general heading: PSYCHOLOGY--the child of philosophy. This brings us to:

3. Spiritual science. Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_science
The philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, like that of Carl Jung, fits in quite nicely with what I call PNEUMATOLOGY & THEOLOGY--scientific studies of the human and divine spirit.

See there you lost me already Rev K you want to use the word science.

Look at your reference on psychology and says it all it is an academic discipline NOT a SCIENCE. There are certain bits of psychology that are scientific but the whole of psychology is not and does not claim to be a SCIENCE.

Infact psychology has got itself into quite a mess recently when they tried to adopt science principles with things such as Multiple Personality Disorder which science methods say is junk and does not exist. There is now a huge controversy raging about the issue and many views on the issue within psychology.

Similarlly I am going to reject spiritual science along the same grounds because I can't test anything.

To you it is probably semantical but to scientists something is either scientific or it isn't, we don't allow ambiguity and subjectivity.

Not only was it "once regarded" as fantasy, I think a lot of it still is.

I'm not suggesting that seemingly fantastic ideas should not be explored, I just think it's important to avoid confusing way-out ideas with established facts - if such things can be said to exist.

Well Said

It seems that the difficult part might be deciding what is fantasy and what is fact.

One man's fact is another man's crack-pottery!

Wouldn't life be dull if we all agreed?

establishing facts should not be based on crack pottery.

ie..

using mathematical formulas that are designed to promote a theory.

to me that is crack pottery.

also , to me claiming that nothing can travel faster than the speed
of light is crack pottery.

especially if the formulas that are designed to promote a theory are used to support that theory's claims.

In times past it was thought that 'miasma' caused illness, and perhaps death. This miasma was thought to be present in crowded places in the air, and could be recognised by bad smells. So the savvy people lived in the country and carried sweet-smelling posies to ward off the miasma. The latter did little to help, and it was not until the discovery of germs that some of the mysteries of disease started to be solved. It took a long time though to convince doctors to wash their hands between patients!

I was trying to point out that chucking out the fantasy may also chuck out the cure. Some of it is going to be useless-- I simply do not believe that water has a memory for instance, however foxgloves can help cure heart disease.

I had thought that science tried to answer the questions that arise from the world around us- sadly this will mean that some research will be unproductive, and involve some crack-pottery, but some will be valuable.

Think how much time those alchemists spent futilely trying to turn stone into gold-- now that was a very enduring fantasy!

Orac, take note: I make no claim that psychology--a subject I have studied all my life--is a hard science like that of chemistry or physics. But even you do agree--do you not?--that bits of it do take a scientific approach.

Now, look below at how the dictionary defines the word 'science'. I assume we can both easily agree on definitions # 1, 2 & 3.

But, what about definitions # 4 & 5-- #4, about "systematized knowledge in general? And #5, about knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study".

There is lots of general knowledge about theology, pneumatology, psychology, etc. IMO, this means they are more than just made-up philosophies, myths, fantasies, or fiction.

One day they could be developed enough to join the ranks of studies that take a scientific approach and could be able to measure things like morality, fear, faith, hope, courage and willpower, etc. WILLPOWER--The Greatest Human Strength, is the name of a recent and well-received psychology-based book about willpower. The book has attracted world-media attention.