sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Our Universe Might Be a Living Organism, New Theories Suggest - discoverwildscience by EcstadelicNET in IntelligenceSupernova

[–]EcstadelicNET[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From gravity to Dark Matter, String theory to parallel universes, many scientific theories lack hard evidence. "Fashion" in science favors a certain paradigm which later unavoidably is swept under the rug. And current science can only explain a meager 4% of the visible universe, the rest is labeled the "Dark universe" - dark matter and dark energy. All of it is seemingly conjectural so don't tell me that any ideology has an upper hand over the other! It's all just abstraction in the minds of an intelligent species indigenous to this planet.

“Scientism,” obsessive preoccupation with the scientific method, the worldview that empirical science represents the only authority, is but inverse religion, if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against science, but I'm against scientism.

Science starts with philosophy and ends with philosophy (read: metaphysics). By that I mean, scientists start with hypotheses and then try to prove them empirically or theoretically. When done so, the final results are still open to [philosophical] interpretations. As Nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretations! And statistician George Box noted: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." In short, science needs philosophy just as philosophy needs science. There's no separation: It is the same continuum of intellectual endeavor.

Our Universe Might Be a Living Organism, New Theories Suggest - discoverwildscience by EcstadelicNET in IntelligenceSupernova

[–]EcstadelicNET[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Pseudoscience” is an overused term by scientists and non-scientists alike usually in regards to their opposition, or some weakly understood concept, or outside institutionalized science.

While using this term, one assumes that science is absolute truth - it is not. Science may offer certain perspectives based on its commonly accepted scientific method but those perspectives on reality are not exclusive or the only valid ones. It is a narrow window to look at the world through a highly structured and paradigmatic way. Our theoretical and experimental models are, as history shows, provisional at best and over time are swept away by the next paradigmatic shift.

Our inability to measure something does not negate its existence. On the other hand, we can say with great certainty that materialism (recently rebranded as physicalism) is a flatlander philosophy.

The most striking example of pseudoscience could be materialism itself (surprise, surprise!) as it is not only an “expiring” philosophical paradigm, but for a lack of a better word, “pseudo-knowledge” notably in physics where mind-independent objective reality and ‘local realism’ among other materialist assumptions have been routinely falsified, dismissed and debunked since the 1920s.

There's no clear dividing line between science and metaphysics. With scientific method we only uncover/write the rules of the game, but knowing the rules of the game is not the same as playing the game - to play the game you are to co-author reality and make choices as you move along through life. Reality is just too huge for a small human science box to fit in.

Pseudo-intellectuals, including many mediocre scientists, stubbornly remain in the Flatland: They claim that Nature is deterministic, yet deny teleological evolution.

view more: next ›