Whats wrong with the scientific way of understanding the universe? And materialism?

[BjarkeT]

Hi

i apologize if this is off topic but whats wrong with the scientific way of understanding the universe?(or just how scientists understand the universe) And materialism? And why is the alternative approach supposed to be better?

I don't mean to start an argument just trying to get a clearification as i have seen serval people say that the people who use the scientific method think they understand the universe but they really don't or something similar (i am paraphrasing)

Please instead of just saying it is wrong say why because just saying it is wrong doesn't give any clearification about why if possible please post evidence not just opinions I don't mean this in a negative way and i am sorry if it's understood in that way it's just that it helps with clearification i have still gotten some very useful replys

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[snowleopard]

 

[BjarkeT]

Does he explain later in the video why that's supposed to be true what he said in the beginning? Anyone can say against something but just saying you are against it doesn't make it true or false (you need some kind of evidence that support your claim)

Besides neuroscience(and related concepts) seems to have a good understanding about the brain

thanks for the video by the way

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Nahm]

@BjarkeT what’s ‘wrong’ with it is that it’s based on a misunderstanding (putting it nicely) of what you are, which alone is the root of suffering. Without the misunderstanding, no suffering. 

[BjarkeT]

4 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@BjarkeT what’s ‘wrong’ with it is that it’s based on a misunderstanding (putting it nicely) of what you are, which alone is the root of suffering. Without the misunderstanding, no suffering. 

How is it a miss understanding? Again anybody can say anything about anything but that makes it neither true or false only if there is some kind of evidence we can know which one it is it shouldn't be based on opinions 

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Nahm]

@BjarkeT you are the evidence. 

[BjarkeT]

What do you mean? Could you elaborate?

[Nahm]

@BjarkeT You are the evidence, you are the Truth, you are nondual. You are The One. You are the reality. You can’t see it or hear it or learn it or find it, because, it’s you. 

[BjarkeT]

But I believe there is a world outside of me it's not just me i do believe we make our own perception of reality but not that we are reality if that was true why can't we just become superman? If we really where reality we shouldn't have any limits in reality which is why I believe we live in reality but create our own perception of it(or a part of why)

i am sorry but I don't see how it dissprove of the things i mention(or provide the evidence)

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[NoSelfSelf]

There is no better or worse way to look at reality you look at it as material and non material at the same time it is existence and non existence wrong way is to hold belief that it cant be non material

Edited December 17, 2017 by NoSelfSelf

[BjarkeT]

2 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

There is no better or worse way to look at reality you look at it as material and non material at the same time it is existence and non existence wrong way is to hold belief that it cant be non material

But i am not asking if there is a better or worse way just that why some people think against the scientific method and materlism

[Leo Gura]

You talk about proof, but do you understand that there is actually zero proof for materialism?

If anything, quantum mechanics and general relativity have disproven materialism 100 years ago. It's just that mainstream culture hasn't caught on.

If you do a search, you'll find we've discussed this issue to death already in similar threads just a few weeks ago.

Smoke some DMT and you will have your evidence.

[BjarkeT]

How is smoking evidence? why that over the scientific method way of evidence?

how is there zero proof for materialism isn't there some scientific evidence for it? Like physics or biology for example

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[Leo Gura]

@BjarkeT How is anything evidence?

That's the real question.

You cannot even begin to imagine what you're missing.

[BjarkeT]

But thats what the scientific method is about 

[YaNanNallari]

Where does the world come from? How does science answer that? It doesn't. It doesn't answer the origin of reality. So even if you assume there's a world outside, you won't know the true nature of it. Therefore anything is possible, although maybe extremely unlikely.

Science talks about what is possible. It says nothing about the origin of reality. It is not its job.

[ajasatya]

@BjarkeT you'll be stuck forever unless you bring your deepest anguish into play.

the scientific method is about testing the limits of hypotheses, which are beliefs about the way that Reality works. it's intrinsically impossible to reach Truth with science because of the way that science works. science is about finding mathematical models that seem to simulate Reality sufficiently well in specific contexts, with deeply practical goals (super computers, cars and efficient engineering in general).

scientists that actually know their shit are very clear about all this. as theoretical as a scientist can be, he can't describe what the ultimate substance of Reality is with equations. he can describe its behavior, but not what it is. it's just that lay people (with weak academic background) think that science is something that it's not.

[BjarkeT]

@ajasatya but it isn't just about belief there is more to it than that the way i understand it is that it's about getting data science have been in use way before computers 

what do you mean by being stuck forever? Stuck from what?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT

[snowleopard]

@BjarkeT  Kastrup was a hardcore materialist scientist working as a computer engineer at CERN, where state-of-the-art particle physics investigation is being done, who has been published in Scientific American, and other well-known scientific journals, so if you're not going to give him credibility, then who are you going to give credibility?

[BjarkeT]

@snowleopard what has that to do with the question i asked? I have never heard of him so I can't say anything about him

and why are you asking that?

Edited December 17, 2017 by BjarkeT