Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[Leo Gura]

Actually, science's goal isn't the bettering of science. It is mostly about advancing one's career and survival.

It's very dangerous to conflate survival with truth. Which is exactly the mistake science has made.

[Akemrelax]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

the majority of people hear it and take the attitude of, "Shut up. Everyone knows science isn't perfect and it's already bettering itself."

That's your response when someone criticizes the left or feminism.  

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

That's your response when someone criticizes the left or feminism.  

Again, this is where you must distinguish criticism from below vs above.

Right-wing critiques of feminism and progressivism is from below.

I have my own critiques of feminism and progressivism from above.

Of course a Creationist's critique of science is not to be taken seriously because it is from below.

[EternalForest]

@commie Elaborate what you mean by abstractions as opposed to measurements. And It's only long gone if you want it to be. You can still test the the validity of the Laws of Physics in 2020, nothing's stopping you. Rest assured, those days of science aren't long gone for me!

@Leo Gura That's kind of an extreme example but all I can say is, everything's a risk. When I walk on the sidewalk I risk getting run over by a drunk driver, doesn't mean I'm going to stop walking. In the same way, although science needs to better itself, it's not worth dismissing everything we've learned so far. For now, that's all we got. We need to use that to find something better. Otherwise we just sit in the house all day afraid of getting run over. So I'm going to still go out and walk, with the risk of getting run over, but with the possible reward of finding something better.

[commie]

2 minutes ago, EternalForest said:

@commie Elaborate what you mean by abstractions as opposed to measurements.

Language (mostly maths) and models.

2 minutes ago, EternalForest said:

You can still test the the validity of the Laws of Physics in 2020, nothing's stopping you.

I'm not sure what these "laws" are would be but how would I test gravitational waves aspect of GR for instance? You're living a fantasy.

[Leo Gura]

@EternalForest Your logic is exactly how Catholics justify pedophilia in their Church.

Outsiders complain about the pedophile priest problem and the corruption.

Catholics respond: "Well, I still gotta keep going to church. It's the best we've got. Otherwise I just sit home all Sunday. So I'm gonna send my kids to the priest anyway, with the risk of them being molested, but with the possible reward of them finding Jesus."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, EternalForest said:

You can still test the the validity of the Laws of Physics in 2020

No you can't! You never could because "validity" is a relativistic notion which is entangled with your epistemic, metaphysical, and methodological biases.

No single law of science can be validated in isolation. ALL OF SCIENCE gets dragged into the validation process. As does, of course, your ego.

Nothing in science can ever truly be validated because the scientific method has itself never been validated. Nor could it ever be because you have no criteria by which to validate it.

Did you even watch my video? Cause you missed what I said. Go back and re-watch it carefully. You didn't get it at all.

[commie]

Social constructions are necessarily validated in the context of other social constructions.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, toocrazytobecrazy said:

Why do you equated priest to science.  You should equate priests to scientists. 

According to your logic  no matter what science will always be corrupt, same with "meta-science".

Do you really think  "meta-science" will be clean? Do you choose truth over "meta-science"? 

Church = science

Priests = scientists

This doesn't really help your case at all.

It will always be corrupt, but we can make it less corrupt. According to your logic, nothing can ever be improved because perfection is unattainable.

All knowledge schemes will always be fallible, but it's long overdue for mankind and science to assimilate the lessons of meta-science which I teach.

Absolute Truth exists and it can be accessed without any fallibility. The materialist, rationalist paradigm is garbage and it should have died 100 years ago. Yet it still lives on.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, toocrazytobecrazy said:

If you want to show and improve the faulty assumptions about science you can show it under science.

No you can't! That's the whole problem!

The issue is how science has defined "science". If the definition is too narrow, then you will not be able to use science to expand the definition of science because any evidence or proof for its expansion will lie outside the narrow faulty definition that science uses for itself.

You're not understanding the depth of the problem. You are taking "science" for granted. But in fact science does not even know what counts as "science"! This is unknown! It cannot ever be known or defined because nature is infinite. Which means you have to stop being an arrogant ass.

[Leo Gura]

OMG you are dumb.

It's like I'm trying to teach arithmetic to mules.

[Gesundheit]

I am currently watching the first part. I'm halfway through and I have already spotted a few blindspots. So just in case I feel like it, get your ass ready for some critique Leo ?

[Abdelghafar]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

OMG you are dumb.

It's like I'm trying to teach arithmetic to mules.

In Leo's defense, he puts up with a lot on this forum because that's his job, but still, people could at least give him a break and figure stuff out on their own sometimes, and mostly they do.

However life is full of these hardships in trying to explain somethings that seem intuitively or logically self-explanatory to other people, but I emphathize with both sides, Leo and the people on this forum. I know how it is like to be confused and wanting an explanation.

[Sebiwert]

There is not one 'science', there are only academics. They come together in a giant (very slow and devised) conversation through journals and conferences. All of them use different methods (that's why there is a methods section in papers) and argue in favor of them. If you have enough other academics believing in your method, you have an audience, get cited, popular... 

If you want to establish new methods like Meditation or taking psychedelics, you have to convince other academics. If you want to establish a new metaphysics, you have to convince other academics. It's a cultural thing, so new brave scientists have to establish new/ancient methods.

Scientists come up with models and use language, if your Truths lay outside language, they have no value for academia. If you come up with better models of reality, then scientists will probably accept them. But the whole prevalent model of the world builds on hundreds of years of materialistic science. I guess you would have to start from scratch with an idealistic or nondual base-assumption.

@Leo Gura Do you think the building of models of the world itself is a problem? Because that's all scientists do.

[Atmagyani]

Science can't do anything to help become Self Realized.

Once you become Self Realized, you don't need religion or Science or anything from universe.

Science is a need for ego.

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Sebiwert said:

@Leo Gura Do you think the building of models of the world itself is a problem? Because that's all scientists do.

"The better the model, the bigger the problem."

[Atmagyani]

Science can't do anything to help become Self Realized.

Once you become Self Realized, you don't need religion or Science or anything from universe.

Science is a need for ego.

[Harikrishnan]

Leo's video discussed in reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/jis0ol/could_anyone_fact_check_this_video_from_a_million/

[Gesundheit]

24 minutes ago, Harikrishnan said:

Leo's video discussed in reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/jis0ol/could_anyone_fact_check_this_video_from_a_million/

Cool! I think I will finally join reddit.

On another note, I have a question for @Leo Gura:

How is this series any different from your old video Science vs. Religion? I mean sure it is and will be much more detailed, but isn't it still at the same plane? I don't see much difference in that aspect.

 

[Leo Gura]

@Gesundheit A lot deeper, with many new points.

I could do 100 videos on how science works, and they would all be valuable.