The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is ...Science ?  (Read 18236 times)

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #75 on: 18/11/2013 22:09:37 »
If you say so...

Cheryl j seems to understand why there is no paradox in my beliefs. I have a feeling that everyone else here does as well. I'm not going to get bent out of shape because one stranger on the Internet can't understand it. So this'll be my final post in this thread.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #76 on: 19/11/2013 01:22:52 »

You just did misunderstand my words :
I have been saying that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain "everything"  as the elusive so-called  physical  "theory  of everything = nothing " tries to do   , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material ,which means that physics and chemistry cannot explain anything in fact for that matter , they just try to describe the physical or material side of reality , physics and chemistry alone do not even succeed at explaining  even the physical or material side of reality , they just try to describe it  : see how modern physics have been superseding materialism .




Yes, perhaps I have misunderstood you, and I'm sorry for forgetting at times that English is not your first language.

 In English, when one says that "Not everything can be explained by X," it implies that some things can be explained by X, but other things cannot.

If you want to say that zero things are explained by X, you would say "nothing is explained by X"

What makes a phrase like "not everything" ambiguous is that it is not always clear if the writer means "not all of the members of a set" or "not every aspect of all members of the set."

If I were trying to explain why a group of people are friends, I might say “not everything” is explained by their interest in music. That could mean that some of the people in the group are musicians but some are not. Or it could mean they are musicians but they are also Chinese and musicians. Unless I am more specific, no one will know what I mean.  If I really truly mean that music has nothing to do with it, I would say “nothing” about that group is explained by an interest in music.
 
That is one reason why I think you are being misunderstood. It has not been clear in many of your posts when you say “Not everything can be explained by chemistry and physics” whether you believed:

 1)Some things can, but others can’t be explained by chemistry or physics   or

 2)Everything always involves an immaterial explanation, even if there is sometimes chemistry and physics involved in the process,    or

3)Chemistry and physics do not explain anything that happens. They do not matter at all, they are irrelevant. They explain nothing. They explain nothing by themselves or even when combined with a immaterial explanation.

To be honest though, I'm not 100% sure it is just a language problem. I am not entirely sure that you haven't flipped back and forth or contradicted yourself by saying in some posts that chemistry and physics could explain the "purely physical, purely biological" but later denying in other posts that anything is purely physical, or purely biological.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2013 04:31:10 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #77 on: 19/11/2013 17:10:50 »
If you say so...

Cheryl j seems to understand why there is no paradox in my beliefs. I have a feeling that everyone else here does as well. I'm not going to get bent out of shape because one stranger on the Internet can't understand it. So this'll be my final post in this thread.
[/quote]

Stranger or not : science or the truth are  not a democracy , not the right of the majority ,dude .
That you cannot all see the intrinsic paradox of your own beliefs is your problem , not mine .
The main problem is that you have been all taking the false materialist conception of nature for granted as the "scientific world view " , that's why you are so confused .
You cannot believe in the latter , while believing in the immaterial at the same time , no way = a paradox .
Try to sort just that out for yourself, or not , who cares : your problem, not mine .
Running away from the problem won't make it go away : just try to face the music then ...or not ...
Good luck, either way  .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #78 on: 19/11/2013 17:50:00 »

You just did misunderstand my words :
I have been saying that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain "everything"  as the elusive so-called  physical  "theory  of everything = nothing " tries to do   , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material ,which means that physics and chemistry cannot explain anything in fact for that matter , they just try to describe the physical or material side of reality , physics and chemistry alone do not even succeed at explaining  even the physical or material side of reality , they just try to describe it  : see how modern physics have been superseding materialism .




Yes, perhaps I have misunderstood you, and I'm sorry for forgetting at times that English is not your first language.

Has nothing to do with that, not really  .
That  has everything to do with the fact that you have been all taking the materialist false conception of nature for granted as the "scientific world view " , that's why you are so confused : centuries of materialist indoctrinations and brainwash are not that easy to undo .
Good luck with just that .

Quote
In English, when one says that "Not everything can be explained by X," it implies that some things can be explained by X, but other things cannot.


I was just referring to that physical "theory of everything = theory of nothing " that tries to explain everything = nothing just in terms of physics and chemistry, while taking the latter for all what there is out there  .
There might be some more fundamental forms of causation out there , a non-physical one at that  underlying the laws of physics themselves , the latter that cannot alone explain how living organisms , for example ,can be self-organizing , can give rise to their own forms and shapes ...
DNA or physics and chemistry alone cannot explain just that  and the rest .
 

Quote
If you want to say that zero things are explained by X, you would say "nothing is explained by X"

Don't try to play the wise girl, sis :
Your launched boomerang might hit you back in the face , while missing its intended target(s):
Well, see above : to try to explain everything = reality as a whole just via physics and chemistry alone , by assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical , is like trying to explain the whole pic just via one single part of it : just an analogy .
Physics and chemistry alone do explain nothing in fact , they just try to describe the physical material  or the  biological they take for the whole real thing .

Quote
What makes a phrase like "not everything" ambiguous is that it is not always clear if the writer means "not all of the members of a set" or "not every aspect of all members of the set."

See above , wise girl .
The material physical part of reality is not all what there is to reality as a whole , so, that physical "theory of everything " = a theory of nothing , can explain nothing thus , simply because the physical or material part of reality is not all what there is to reality .


 

Quote
To be honest though, I'm not 100% sure it is just a language problem. I am not entirely sure that you haven't flipped back and forth or contradicted yourself by saying in some posts that chemistry and physics could explain the "purely physical, purely biological" but later denying in other posts that anything is purely physical, or purely biological.

Yeah, right :
When you can't understand or do not want to understand something , thanks to some false irrational outdated belief of yours  you do take for granted as science  , just accuse somebodyelse instead: how convenient and handy  .

Irrelevan and false silly speculations : grow up .
I think you're over-estimating your own capacity of judgement,poor girl  .
I will explain that to you as follows , this simple way , see above also :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, and hence nothing is just physical or material , including matter itself ( see modern physics regarding the latter ) = nothing can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , while physics and chemistry "pretend " to be able to explain everything = nothing in the above mentioned sense , via that physical "theory of everything " = theory of nothing in fact  : physics and chemistry just try to describe or try to explain the physical material biological ,while assuming that the latter is all what there is to reality as a whole , including life and the rest .

So, physics and chemistry alone can explain ...nothing  in fact,for the above mentioned reasons  .
Science must thus reject its false physical material " scentific world view ", by including the mental that's irreducible to the physical ,once again : science has no choice but to try to do that , if science wanna deserve fully to be called ...science at least  .
Science that's been extremely succesfull in  revealing some aspects of the physical material reality , while assuming that that is all what there is to reality as a whole .
The latter false 'scientific " assumption is what makes science so far unable to "see " the missing part of the whole pic without which there would be no real scientific understanding of reality as a whole .
Get that ?
Take an aspirin ,if your brain , or rather your mind happens to hurt as a result .
Cheers .
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #79 on: 19/11/2013 18:06:19 »
So this'll be my final post in this thread.

That's what everyone else ought to do too, so this will be my final post in any of these silly threads.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #80 on: 19/11/2013 18:17:02 »


Has nothing to do with that, not really  .

I am happy for you that it is not actually a language problem, but disappointed that it has been a matter of deliberate obscurification on your part all along. Avoiding questions or making ambiguous statements does not prevent others from seeing logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence for your position - they are still glaringly obvious.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2013 18:18:41 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #81 on: 19/11/2013 18:35:21 »
So this'll be my final post in this thread.

That's what everyone else ought to do too, so this will be my final post in any of these silly threads.
[/quote]

Well , that's your own free choice : that does not mean you're right .
That will not keep me awake at night either , do not worry about just that .
 But, that won't make the fact go away that the 'scientific world view " is false , and hence reality is not just material or physical,including life , its emergence origins and evolution, including even matter itself (see modern physics regarding the latter ), including evolution itself that cannot be logically just biological = that physical "theory of everything " = theory of nothing .
In short :

The most fundamental form of causation of them all might turn out to be ...non-physical at its ultimate core , in the form of some sort of non-physical fields of some sort ,or otherwise , who knows ? I don't know .
All i know is that reality as a whole cannot be explained just via its physical side , no way , its physical side that's way less fundamental than its mental non-physical one that's irreducible to the physical .

In other words :
Trying to explain the whole pic just via its physical side, is not only an extremely idiotic absurd surreal attempt at that , and a false one at that , but it is also ...unscientific = mixing up science with materialist ...magic = mixing oil with water, so to speak .
« Last Edit: 19/11/2013 18:37:08 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #82 on: 19/11/2013 18:42:45 »
Quote


Has nothing to do with that, not really  .
I am happy for you that it is not actually a language problem, but disappointed that it has been a matter of deliberate obscurification on your part all along. Avoiding questions or making ambiguous statements does not prevent others from seeing logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence for your position - they are still glaringly obvious.


See above : i cannot be any clearer :
I have even been trying to use just simple language ,anybody for that matter , can understand :
You just keep on being blinded by your false materialist beliefs ,you do confuse with science .
And i am not responsible for your centuries-long materialist indoctrinations and brainwash you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " ,without question .
Try to sort that our for yourself then .
I am afraid , i cannot help you in that regard any further .

Good luck with your own search or journey .
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #83 on: 19/11/2013 21:54:44 »
Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.

I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.

I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2013 21:56:50 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #84 on: 19/11/2013 23:32:23 »
Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.

I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.

I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.

I agree with you. But  Don has never explained or defined his concept of the immaterial. From the all of his posts, it appears to be a mystical catch-all concept and nothing definite, or nothing he is willing to define, because someone might disprove it, or worse, decide it is just inconsequential.   I doubt Don's immaterial has very much in common with an isosceles triangle or Pi, which are also immaterial, but can be described in very specific ways.

Don has gotten a lot of attention on this forum. I can't help but notice that the conversation dies down on these particular threads when he disappears. At the same time, he doesn't understand that you don't change people's thinking or create a "paradigm shift" by beating people with a stick and saying "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" You convince them by offering them alternative theories, with in depth explanation of those ideas and evidence for them,  that are more convincing than the theories they had.

« Last Edit: 20/11/2013 10:45:49 by cheryl j »
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #85 on: 20/11/2013 05:10:22 »
On the other hand, shouting incoherent rantings into the ether is symptomatic of syphilis, so there may be a madness to his method.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #86 on: 20/11/2013 17:19:30 »
On the other hand, shouting incoherent rantings into the ether is symptomatic of syphilis,


Is that a scientific fact , sis ? Weird  doc you are haha .
What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?

Quote
so there may be a madness to his method.

There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #87 on: 20/11/2013 17:47:59 »
Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.

What are you afraid of ? only dogmatic , ignorant people , idiots ,fools or materialists haha are afraid of the truth .

You're part of that list = you are such a dogmatic guy ,that you cannot  but run away by not  facing  the music .
Congratulations .

Quote
I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense.


(Prior note :
For your info : the mainstream "scientific world view " excludes, per definition, any existence of the immaterial as such , in any form or shape, including even thoughts ,  qualia ..., .)

Well, the mainstream "scientific world view " does think that consciousness is just a biological process = consciousness allegedly originated from the evolved complexity of the physical brain = consciousness was just an "emergent " phenomena or  property from the evolved complexity of the brain = materialist magic in science = no science = no empirical fact .
Quote
What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.

Who said otherwise ? How brain and mind are linked ? : that's just a matter of belief or world view , not a scientific matter .

I do believe that consciousness the self or soul do permeate every atom , cell and organ of ours within and without .
Quote
I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.

Numbers and logic are no "things ", no entities , just concepts , symbols ,abstract "language" ...numbers do not exist as such : just abstractions, symbols ...

Do you know , by the way , any non-human species , on earth at least , except those purely immaterial beings then, that can think abstractly , via logic , reason ...the latter that seem to be independent of the subject using them ?

Can you explain the higher form of human intellect just in mechanistic materialist computation terms ? as products of the neurons' interactions ? via patterns ...

Should i remind you of the fact that the "scientific world view " just assumes that human intellect is also a biological process thus ? absurd .

Where did maths come from, for example ? super maths that seem to be underlying the physical laws ?

How did we get to have maths ?

Are they just biological , as mainstream science assumes them to be ?


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #88 on: 20/11/2013 18:19:25 »
Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.

I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.

I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.

I agree with you. But  Don has never explained or defined his concept of the immaterial. From the all of his posts, it appears to be a mystical catch-all concept and nothing definite, or nothing he is willing to define, because someone might disprove it, or worse, decide it is just inconsequential.


The immaterial can  , per definition, not be defined as such ,sis , come on , be serious: that's the main trouble with it , whatever that might be  .
The main trouble with western thought is that almost all its knowledge is conceptual : that's no serious way to apprehend reality as a whole .
We can try to define the immaterial consciousness ,for example , by saying that it is the self, the soul or whatever , but then again : that's no definition : what is the self then ? what is the soul ? = that escapes any definition , simply because the self or soul are immaterial+ subjective  and  non-local , and hence cannot be "captured " as to confine them to  a certain time or space, or to a certain  definition  .
I am not inventing the immaterial , such as consciousness , the immaterial is the other side of the same coin of reality as a whole , the other side being the physical or material, so nothing is just material or physical, including matter itself as modern physics have been showing concerning the latter at least  .

In short :

To try to explain reality as a whole just via its physical or material side ,is not only an idiotic absurd surreal ...you name it ...attempt , but it is mainly unscientific   to try to do so , so, all sciences must try to include the mental or non -physical non-material that's irreducible to the physical or to the material , if all all sciences wanna deserve fully to be called sciences at least ,if all sciences wanna be able to try to approach reality as a whole somehow , or just some of it ,including at least some of  its mental side thus, in order to make us try to understand reality as a whole package ,relatively speaking then  .

Life  , human language , and the rest , their evolution origins nature or emergence ,  for example , cannot therefore be just physical or material .
Evolution itself cannot be just biological .
Matter itself cannot be just material or physical .

Quote
  I doubt Don's immaterial has very much in common with an isosceles triangle or Pi, which are also immaterial, but can be described in very specific ways.

Do not confuse the abstract with  the  immaterial .
Those triangles ,Pi....do not exist as such : they are just abstract symbols : abstract  mathematical  "language " .
Quote
Don has gotten a lot of attention on this forum. I can't help but notice that the conversation dies down on these particular threads when he disappears. At the same time, he doesn't understand that you don't change people's thinking or create a "paradigm shift" by beating people with a stick and saying "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" You convince them by offering them alternative theories, with in depth explanation of those ideas and evidence for them,  that are more convincing than the theories they had.

I did provide you, guys , with a lots of material on the subject , including significant excerpts from Sheldrake's "science set free ..." , from Nagel's " Mind and cosmos : why the materialist ....conception of nature is.... false" ....not to mention my extensive posts on the subject ....

I did say also , on many occasions , that i am here just to state the problem , to tell what science is not , not to propose a solution : defining the problem is half a solution .

The core problem or deep malaise at the very heart of science is ,once again :

that all sciences at least  have been wrongly assuming  that reality as a whole is just material or physical , and hence the "scientific world view " has been doing the same all along , since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialism thus , the latter's false conception of nature  that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " : that has serious  and far reaching  implications for all our presumed scientific knowledge under materialism, we have been taking for granted at all levels and in any scientific given field : there is thus a lots of materialist crap out there we have been all taking for granted as science ; a lots of materialist crap we have to kiss goodbye :

All sciences must abandon or reject their false materialist meta-paradigm thus , must undergo a major ,revolutionary , radical change and shift of meta-paradigm ,as to include the missing part of reality which has been labeled by the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " as being non-existent , or as being just physical or material ....

You will all have to throw most of your presumed "scientific " knowledge out of the window at some point of history thus . 



What do you want more form me ?

Just try to conduct your own research on the subject via all those  sources and material i have been displaying on this forum thus.
« Last Edit: 20/11/2013 18:33:40 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #89 on: 20/11/2013 20:45:09 »



The immaterial can  , per definition, not be defined as such ,sis , come on , be serious: that's the main trouble with it ,

Yeah, that would seem to be a bit of a problem, wouldn't it?

Quote
The main trouble with western thought is that almost all its knowledge is conceptual : that's no serious way to apprehend reality as a whole .

It's worked pretty well so far, that concepty thing.
« Last Edit: 20/11/2013 20:56:06 by cheryl j »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #90 on: 20/11/2013 20:49:29 »
I do believe that consciousness the self or soul do permeate every atom , cell and organ of ours within and without

That's the LSD "oneness" talking.


https://www.google.com/search?q=LSD+oneness+universe+hallucination

"Rupert Sheldrake | Materialism & LSD" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnXdyF_cSdgAbe55b2fcb5c$Qn
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 02:25:48 by RD »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #91 on: 20/11/2013 22:35:12 »
If anyone is throwing their presumed scientific knowledge out of their window, please let  me know. I may have a use for it. Thank you.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #92 on: 21/11/2013 18:35:31 »
If anyone is throwing their presumed scientific knowledge out of their window, please let  me know. I may have a use for it. Thank you.
[/quote]

Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said ( I said most   of one's presumed "scientific"  knowledge.)  : you might turn out to be not interested in the latter, after all .
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 18:37:22 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #93 on: 22/11/2013 02:20:35 »
What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?


There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .


 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #94 on: 22/11/2013 02:44:00 »


Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said ( I said most   of one's presumed "scientific"  knowledge.)  : you might turn out to be not interested in the latter, after all .

Well, you never know, I might be interested.  Just tell me specifically what I'd be getting without all that silly chemistry and physics and biology stuff, and I'll let you know.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #95 on: 22/11/2013 02:46:03 »

To try to explain reality as a whole just via its physical or material side ,is not only an idiotic absurd surreal ...you name it ...attempt

Then I challenge you to explain reality "as a whole" using any method you choose without reference to testable and repeatable measurement of the physical universe. I dare you to try.............................
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #96 on: 22/11/2013 02:49:54 »


Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said
You say "crap" do you? We've all been exposed to a great deal of that "crap" lately, and I think you know who I'm talking about, don't you??
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #97 on: 22/11/2013 17:56:46 »
What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?


There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .



So ? There is nothing more insane surreal absurd ,nothing more stupid and idiotic ...you name it ...than the current mainstream false "scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality is just material or physical ,including the mental thus ,  thanks to materialism .

Is reality just that then , genius ? just material or physical ?
When has science ever proved that core materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality is just material or physical then ?

When , how ? absurd .
Materialism that does go beyond science , beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method , beyond science's jurisdiction ,by assuming reality to be just material or physical , by pretending to know the nature of reality as a whole ...already ...by confining science to just that materialist prison , by holding back science from progressing ,by  branding as a scientific heresy any scientific attempts to try   to reveal the mental or non-physical side of reality ....

Outdated and superseded materialism that dates back to the 19th century , materialism that's just a false conception of nature , just a world view, a philsophy ...no science .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #98 on: 22/11/2013 18:19:33 »

So ? There is nothing more insane surreal absurd ,nothing more stupid and idiotic ...you name it ...than the current mainstream false "scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality is just material or physical ,including the mental thus ,  thanks to materialism .

Is reality just that then , genius ? just material or physical ?
When has science ever proved that core materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality is just material or physical then ?

When , how ? absurd .
Materialism that does go beyond science , beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method , beyond science's jurisdiction ,by assuming reality to be just material or physical , by pretending to know the nature of reality as a whole ...already ...by confining science to just that materialist prison , by holding back science from progressing ,by  branding as a scientific heresy any scientific attempts to try   to reveal the mental or non-physical side of reality ....

Outdated and superseded materialism that dates back to the 19th century , materialism that's just a false conception of nature , just a world view, a philsophy ...no science .


Then take Ethos up on his challenge. Should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for someone who has been freed from the materialist world view and false conception of nature.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #99 on: 23/11/2013 00:12:01 »

Then take Ethos up on his challenge. Should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for someone who has been freed from the materialist world view and false conception of nature.
Thanks Cheryl j for reminding him. But I doubt it will get any creditable response. In fact, I've become so bored with his useless rhetoric, I've been thinking about just ignoring him. He really has nothing to add and listening to his rants is a waste of time. He's only seeking attention and I, for one, have heard enough.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #99 on: 23/11/2013 00:12:01 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums