Authority and science

[Identity]

@Leo Gura I’m watching the new episode on authorithy, but am confused on the science part.

the religion, as you said, is easy to see hoe it becomes a vicious cycle after a few question.

Also, like you say, science is to a large extend based on authorithy in, to me, quite obvious way in the sense that you have all these labels we give people, journals, etc.

But, If you would strip that away. If you would only look at empicical data. Just observe something and take notes, like science at least preaches it should be done, than still it would be a game of authority?

would you not come to at least relative truths?

Or do you than run into deeper problems in the sense that you are giving logic, symbols, objects, etc autority?

is there anything to this notion of ‘relative truth’? 

[Leo Gura]

Science works on consensus of expertise which is based on authority.

There cannot really be science without a community of people. One guy working in his garage is not enough to produce modern science. Science needs schools, journals, universities, labs, peer review, confrences, textbooks, grants, teamwork, common languages, paradigms, government sponsorship, common units of measure, a common metaphysics, testing, credentials, certifications, etc.

99% of all the science you know is purely concepts and beliefs. This is true even if you are a world-class scientist.

All of this makes science very disconnected from direct experience, leaving a lot of room for error and myopia.

Just the fact that you think science is valid, true, respectable, and good -- notice that that's purely based on blind faith and indoctrination. You believe science is respectable because you were programmed by your culture to believe that. You have never actually verified whether science is a proper method for understanding reality.

[Shadowraix]

@Leo Gura Its a little mind boggling how all of that is why we have the technology today though. Finding good concepts and models that line up with observed patterns. We couldn't do anything if we didn't rely on patterns.

[Identity]

Hmm so the kind of ‘core’ of science, the direct experience and observation part that is preached is valuable, but highly corrupted by devilry?

Kind of like the ideas of god in religion are reversed 180 degrees?

[ajasatya]

Science models reality as an attempt to describe it's "hows". To understand what reality is, you cannot rely on science.

You need to understand that the search for Truth does not discredit science. Science has its place. You just need to be aware of the limits and the goals of science.

[Inliytened1]

@ajasatya well said. 

@Identity Science is a part of the whole - so it will never be able to capture the whole.  

You are the only authority on the whole because you ARE the whole.

@Wasem "And it is fluid, it is changing. Think of the science of 500 years ago"  - exactly.  That's why it requires a consensus.  

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Inliytened1

[Patang]

There are three areas in which human beings have been defined as authorities in terms of describing reality and how one should act in this reality. The authorities are:
1. Secular governmental authority - philosophical and sociological bases.
2. Religious (governmental) authority - spiritual and social bases.
3. Scientific authority - physical models.

Each is based on a hierarchical structure, so that from the more basic element, the authority is drawn to the elements that follow it. None of them is a natural authority and all derive their source of strength from those who believe in them and their principles. All of them, each in its own territory, guarantee better living conditions for those who recognize it as a source of authority.

Each pretends to hold on to the truth, but no one has proof of the truthfulness of its principles or the promises it makes to its followers. All these authorities are social structures designed to serve their members.

Humanity follows them like a blind herd from cradle to grave.

The authority is not out there, it is here within you.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Patang

[Apparition of Jack]

@Identity For the record, Leo isn't saying just because science is relative that makes it "bad" or "not worth it." Science is still a useful tool for understanding the base, causal mechanisms of this physical mind-realm we inhabit, and if applied smartly can have a lot of healthy benefits for a community/society. It's just that science can in no way shape or form point to the way reality actually is, when all too often too many materialist-minded people claim that it does just that. If this single-minded obsession with science gets too strong it can even have negative consequences, such as drugs being used as a "cure-all" for physical and mental ailments (when more often changes in diet, lifestyle and spiritual mindset are far more effective), or incredibly destructive arms-races between nations to see who can use science to come up with the best ways  to murder millions of people in an instant.

If you want to self-actualise, to liberate yourself, and to return to Godhood, your conception of knowledge is going to have to move way, way beyond the way science conceives of it.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Apparation of Jack

[Inliytened1]

You can discover that you imagined science up.  You imagined all of it.  

 

[Leo Gura]

Science's empirical observations are actually what make it useful and good. Where it goes wrong is in its interpretations of those experiences and especially in its big picture understanding of what it all means.

Science is much more than raw data collection. Raw data collection is fine. But science goes on to make models and theories, all of which are extremely limited. Data collection is also highly biased by one's survival agenda and metapnysical paradigm. You literally cannot see data which your paradigm tells you cannot exist.

Just because a thing is limited doesn't mean it is flat out wrong. It can still be useful. But at the same time it's also missing a lot of the big picture.

See my video: Understanding Recontextualization, where I address this point in detail.

[Neorez]

I like the way Alan Watts describes science. He describes it as a attempt to reduce the wiggles of the universe to well defined parameters. but just because it decribes it doesn't mean it is it or that it is isn't usefull. I find that we must try to think on multiple levels at once. See science as sometime practical but at the same time know that it does not represent reality as it really is.