Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[Leo Gura]

A big juicy multi-part video series on the limits of science is coming soon. This will be a serious deconstruction of all of science.

I wanted to collect any questions people have about science, how it works, what it's limits are, any objections to my critiques of science, etc.

I'm particularly interested in collecting any counter-critiques of my critiques of science. Tell me any way you think I'm wrong about science. Obviously you'd have to see my videos first to have counter-critiques, but maybe you have some based on my older videos.

Ask away. Your question may be addressed in the Objections section of the series.

 

[Preety_India]

First I have to know your critiques of science to have a counter critique. 

?

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

First I have to know your critiques of science to have a counter critique. 

?

Obviously that would be ideal. But I have older videos where I critique science.

[nistake]

I think I've heard you talking about the hard problem of consciousness, but it'd be interesting to hear it again.

[Rilles]

Oh, boy, this will be juicy, cant wait for the lab-tards to be triggered! 

 

 

 

 

 

Only joking... please dont ban me I hold no grudge against lab-workers. 

[Girzo]

I would like to hear something about the trouble with collecting the right kind of data and then making a correct assumption from that, basically how self-delusion or paradigm lock can derail reasearch at the very beginning.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Girzo

[Rilles]

Youre definitely gonna have to mention the Pre/trans Fallacy

[kai0]

If science is just a bunch of assumptions why is reality 100% materially consistent ?? In other words why is idealism more true than materialism ??

[Superfluo]

@Leo Gura

As I recall, you talked about quantum fields in the Quantum Mechanics video series. I'd be glad if you expanded on that topic. Why and how can a field (a mathematical concept as I understood) give birth to something not conceptual like subatomic particles? You'll say that subatomic particles are also conceptual, are an illusion, but how come a more ethereal illusion like a concept can transform into a more concrete illusion like particles?

Also, since a friend pointed it out during a conversation, I've been pondering this question: why molecular hydrogen (H2) and molecular oxygen (O2) are gases, thus have air-like properties, but when you mix oxygen and hydrogen together and get water (H2O), suddenly you have non-air-like properties? Why and how mixing things gives birth to new properties? In the end, both gases and non-gases are made of atoms and particles and forces that follow the same rules of physics.

You could say that's the magic of the hydrogen bond, but why then having molecules closer make them appear more solid and doesn't give them other properties? Where it is written?

This last question could simply be my lack of proper information. It may seem silly. But I'm talking about the relationship between physics and the phenomenological world.

Maybe I'm asking why this universe has the rules it shows to have.

 

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Superfluo said:

Why and how can a field (a mathematical concept as I understood) give birth to something not conceptual like subatomic particles?

"Field" is just a projection of our human minds. There is no concept here giving rise to subatomic particles.

We call it "field" for lack of a better word. And all words are projections.

Quote

You'll say that subatomic particles are also conceptual, are an illusion, but how come a more ethereal illusion like a concept can transform into a more concrete illusion like particles?

This isn't happening. You're confusing maps for the territory.

You might as well ask me, "How come the concept of a 'cat' gives rise to something more concrete like a furry 4-legged animal?"

[Dryas]

Oh I can't wait for this one. Hopefully it brings a few hardcore rationalists/materialists on the forum too lol.

You say science relies heavily on authority, just like religion. But surely that couldn't be the case considering the amazing technology, medicine etc. we've developed today, right? And even if  it was reliant on authority like how you say it is, would it really matter? 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Dryas

[Hello from Russia]

Can logic be used for existential inquiry fruitfully if you combine it with post rational cognition?

I'm wrecking my mind right now on how much authority to give to the simple lines of reasoning (such as if X is true, then it means Y is true) while you're doing it from the heightened States of awareness. Of course, If you don't combine it with such a state, all rationality is bullshit. But from such a state, I intuit there is a very high degree of truth in your logic mind. And you even can "feel" If your assumptions are actually truthful or wrong. 

I see the problem is that we still seek (or that we actually need) this conceptual mind to make sense of what is occurring.

It's hard for me to imagine how understanding is possible without concepts, especially since the concept of understanding is a concept in of itself

Edited October 16, 2020 by Hello from Russia

[Jodistrict]

Why do they offer the  “multiverse theory” as a scientific theory invalidating the need for a “God” when the multiverse theory itself is equally unprovable (and more complex) ?  

[Travelion]

What are the main problems of science? Obviously doing science is probably the most usefull method humanity can do to gain technological, medical, ect. development and to improve and save millions of lives. But is conventional science harming some people in any ways? What are those? 

 

I oftentimes hear that science is unable to make metaphysical statements. If we leave out those, isn't science our best tool to investigate our (seemingly) objevtive outer world and life? Where is that approach of reality problematic except for metaphysics?

 

What would free of ideology-science look like?

 

What are the most common self deceptions within science?

[Rolo]

what does it take for science to evolve?

I think you mentioned in the stage turquoise video  (the one that was taken down) of scientists moving from stage yellow to stage turquoise through science, so does that mean science itself evolved into spirituality and there is no room left for science? or has the scientist just found that science is not the answer and personal development is more important to them than the evolution of science?

So the better question would be, does science have the potential to create spiritual enlightenment? or is traditional spirituality the way to go?

Edited October 16, 2020 by Rolo

[LastThursday]

Some ideas:

• Can science say anything at all about unrepeatable phenomena?
• Can we have a science that is non-material - instead of particles and fields, have consciousness as its base?
• Can the process of science be improved so that it doesn't suffer so much from paradigm lock?
• Is there anything blatantly obvious that science is missing because of paradigm lock?
• There are many areas considered fringe science that science could explore. How do we reduce the stigma of investigating them?
• Can science be done without any maths at all?
• Should science be divorced from engineering and corporate interests? If so, how does it get funded?
• What are the benefits of the scientific method - as compared to say introspection and self contemplation or taking psychedelics?
• How can we make science inclusive, so that anyone can do it and understand it?
• How do we get the different branches of science to synergise and talk to each other?

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by LastThursday

[Rilles]

Is evolution intelligent?

[UDT]

Topic: Hard Science, Empiricism

critique of your view of science:

Even if you are right and mind is the ultimate substance of reality.

This mind still produces reliable observations which can be understood and used.

Engineering, Chemistry, Medicine are all "hard science" but essential to our life. Chemical reactions are predictable, same with meds. This was studied through research. We might tap into our own mind studying it, but that's just semantics. This stuff works.

questions to your view of science:

0) Why does science work? 

1) What should the scientific method of empirical research and double blind studies be replaced with to be closer to truth?

2) Is science the best way to discover the processes of reality ? If not, what is (requirement: needs to be visible for others)

3) How can you get rid of the need for science ? 

4) We know that all models are wrong, the map is not the territory, but we have nothing else than models and they mostly work. What could we possibly do otherwise?

 

 

[Leo Gura]

Good, keep 'em coming.

[Hawkins]

Simplistic example: Direct experience tells me the earth is flat, with science on the other hand I can build a good case that the Earth is round. 

You put a lot of importance on direct experience, how come science is the better method for truth seeking in this example?