Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[FlowerNote]

Just saw your vid on science. Biggest BS i have ever seen from you. You are walking on thin ice.

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura Pardon my obnoxious perfectionistic tendencies. It is still top-notch video regardless. Will watch the rest of the series and ask more questions if anything comes up. Thank you.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Gesundheit]

35 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Cool! I think I will finally join reddit.

After reading a few comments, I take this back lol.

10 minutes ago, FlowerNote said:

Just saw your vid on science. Biggest BS i have ever seen from you. You are walking on thin ice.

Elaborate?

[Happy Lizard]

Question to Leo please answer this:
 

If we are to accept that science is very narrowly defined, which i totally agree with. My main concern and many others I believe, is how do we get to including other branches of knowledge under science or perhaps expand the definition of science to be more suitable to “the pursuit of knowledge”?

Specifically, for many of those on the cusp of expecting your point of view (me included) and holding on to the notion of how do we distinguish “shit from shinola”; is there any good examples of this working? 
 

I see an organization like MAPS a great example for how scientists are working with shamans and plant medicine to produce a great outcome. However; who’s to say that this will work with voodoo or crystals ? 
 

I’m just playing a Hitchens razor, and I see how my mind is closed to possibilities here, but please understand that this is why most of us are criticizing you so much. 

[FlowerNote]

"science is BS, who has proven that science actually works? No, what really works the magic power of "contemplation" and 30 days of 5 meo dmt."

How can you honestly say science is BS, but attribute infinite intelligence to "contemplation".

Leo you are so fucked in the head, you are becoming a detriment to society. Someone has to stop Actualized.org

[Carl-Richard]

13 hours ago, toocrazytobecrazy said:

lol you are defining science right now. can't you see?

You're defining science as an ideal rather than looking at its actual presence in the real world.

 

7 hours ago, Atmagyani said:

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.

That is hella naive. Self-realization doesn't cure cancer or end world hunger.

[RendHeaven]

@FlowerNote Science obviously "works."

The question is not what "works." The question is what is TRUE.

Truth and science are not the same thing. This is obvious when you realize for yourself that your current understanding of science is filled with groundless assumptions. You have to realize this for yourself.

That is why contemplation is necessary.

 

Truth is very personal. It is inevitably entangled with your understanding.

Even if you imagine that Truth is somehow an "objective external thing independent of my understanding,"

^that itself IS an understanding and a Truth claim. And again, you must ask yourself, "is it True?"

    > Yes = a groundless assumption    > No = not-knowing

You cannot escape the entanglement of Truth and your personal understanding.

Underneath your empire of groundless assumptions is a deep not-knowing which you conveniently ignore.

You must face this not-knowing head-on before you can arrive at Truth.

That is why contemplation is necessary, and this is why modern science is limited.

Edited October 27, 2020 by RendHeaven

[eggopm3]

it's fascinating to see the responses to this video. Seems to me like the people who miss the point the hardest are those locked in the belief that science and facts and logic are out there in the world rather than projected onto it by the mind. For those people understanding what Leo is saying becomes like 100x more difficult, he might as well be speaking in paradoxes for all the sense it will make to them.

One of the biggest points I liked from the video is that you need to explore the limits of science in order to do better science. That seems completely reasonable to me. But i think many people within the scientific paradigm are so locked into that way of thinking that they dont realize that there are limits at all. Like the room labelled "science" is so big that you can't see the walls or the ceiling when you're standing in the middle of the room, if you explore deeply you'll find that those limits are there, but most people cant be bothered to put in the effort.

[Hello from Russia]

6 hours 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/

Lmao. Tbh, there is no need to watch Leo's video, you can just watch how these people behave in comments and draw pretty much all conclusions you need about the scientific crowd. Pure religion, holyshit

Edited October 27, 2020 by Hello from Russia

[Jodistrict]

Science is like spiral dynamics, in that you have to go through the stages and you can’t skip a stage.  Relativity theory couldn’t have been developed without Newton’s Laws.  Each stage builds on top of the previous stage.   Physics has reached the limit of the materialistic and reductionistic paradigm with quantum mechanics, wave/particle duality, non locality, and the uncertainty principle.   Furthermore, particle physics keeps on generating new particles and they are reaching the limit of the size of particle accelerator that can be feasibly built.  There appears to be no underlying theory to explain all the particles.   These are the conditions for a new paradigm to emerge that takes into account the observer and interconnectedness of the universe.

[eggopm3]

41 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

there is no need to watch Leo's videos on Academia, you can just watch how these people behave in comments and draw pretty much all conclusions you need about the scientific crowd.

I laughed out loud at the guy who posted a link to rational wiki as if that was a reasonable source for an explanation of who Leo is.

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, FlowerNote said:

"science is BS, who has proven that science actually works? No, what really works the magic power of "contemplation" and 30 days of 5 meo dmt."

That's the biggest strawman I've ever seen lmao.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

@FlowerNote Science obviously "works."

The question is not what "works." The question is what is TRUE.

Truth and science are not the same thing. This is obvious when you realize for yourself that your current understanding of science is filled with groundless assumptions. You have to realize this for yourself.

That is why contemplation is necessary.

 

Truth is very personal. It is inevitably entangled with your understanding.

Even if you imagine that Truth is somehow an "objective external thing independent of my understanding,"

^that itself IS an understanding and a Truth claim. And again, you must ask yourself, "is it True?"

    > Yes = a groundless assumption    > No = not-knowing

You cannot escape the entanglement of Truth and your personal understanding.

Underneath your empire of groundless assumptions is a deep not-knowing which you conveniently ignore.

You must face this not-knowing head-on before you can arrive at Truth.

That is why contemplation is necessary, and this is why modern science is limited.

The question is, how would you know that science and truth are two different things unless you already have a concept of the truth in your mind? Imagine being born in an environment where there's only one narrative, how would you know anything outside of it to be true without first assuming a concept of truth which should necessarily be different from the original narrative?

Would love to hear from you too @Leo Gura

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, FlowerNote said:

"science is BS, who has proven that science actually works? No, what really works the magic power of "contemplation" and 30 days of 5 meo dmt."

How can you honestly say science is BS, but attribute infinite intelligence to "contemplation".

Leo you are so fucked in the head, you are becoming a detriment to society. Someone has to stop Actualized.org

That's not Leo in the video. Unlike that passage, the video is well-prepared, well-presented, , and most importantly, very nuanced.

[EternalForest]

@Carl-Richard You're right, true scientists are pretty rare.

@commie I genuinely don't know what you're getting at.

@Leo Gura I watched your video twice before writing what I wrote. Validity isn't some relative notion. Truth is truth, and it can verified one point at a time. Why does all of science need to be dragged into it? And if one individual fact does call the rest of science into question, it's the responsibility of the scientist to account for that and correct for that. A true scientist, as you call them, would definitely do that. We also don't need 100% certainty in the current scientific method we use. Because I agree with you, absolute certainty in any given method isn't possible. But again, we need some working method to continue to do science. And I know you used the priest example, and I agree if corruption is found it should be extinguished, but I'm not aware of any concrete examples of corruption within science that you pointed out. I'm interested in hearing about them, either here or in the next video(s).

Edited October 27, 2020 by EternalForest

[Leo Gura]

41 minutes ago, EternalForest said:

 

@Leo Gura I watched your video twice before writing what I wrote.

Try spending 10 years contemplating what science is.

Quote

Validity isn't some relative notion.

Lol, of course it is, silly.

Quote

Truth is truth, and it can verified one point at a time.

No it can't. Symbolic statements are not truth at all.

Quote

Why does all of science need to be dragged into it?

Because otherwise you cannot make sense of any term, nor do you have a way of testing.

Quote

And if one individual fact does call the rest of science into question, it's the responsibility of the scientist to account for that and correct for that.

A scientist can't account for that if he is in denial of it -- which, like you, he is.

You can't account for something you aren't conscious of.

Quote

but I'm not aware of any concrete examples of corruption within science that you pointed out. I'm interested in hearing about them, either here or in the next video(s).

You are incapable of hearing them because as soon as they are spoken to you, your mind will immediately reject them because you will judge them as unscientific because they lie outside your narrow definitions of "science".

You assume your mind is open, but it is only open as far as the limits of your method. And hence your have blinded yourself without understanding how or why.

Your position is this: "I will gladly listen to any evidence as long as it confirms what I already believe. Now show me where I'm wrong."

[Akemrelax]

This is not a science question per se. It's a practical question.

You said one is not capable of knowing if witchcraft is a valid way of gaining knowledge unless you study it deeply, but same can be said about phrenology or any other "pseudoscience" (racist or otherwise). So how would one determine if these methods of knowing are correct, given that one has limited time and energy, and your high standard for trying to understand these methods?

Would you allow discussions about phrenology just as you allow users to post about astrology? After all, we don't really know if the structure of the skull can determine one's personality, just as we don't know if the month of birth can determine one's personality.

If you say we can rely on the experience of people who have gone into these things, then maybe scientists in the past have tried things like witchcraft and have discovered it's not a valid method. Not to mention there can be conflicting opinions, so do we just take the average of these opinions? Not to mention it what someone else tells can never be trusted.

[Leo Gura]

51 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

You said one is not capable of knowing if witchcraft is a valid way of gaining knowledge unless you study it deeply, but same can be said about phrenology or any other "pseudoscience" (racist or otherwise).

That's right.

Quote

So how would one determine if these methods of knowing are correct, given that one has limited time and energy, and your high standard for trying to understand these methods?

That's exactly the point. One cannot. All knowledge is non-trivial. All knowledge comes with risk, even risk of death.

Quote

Would you allow discussions about phrenology just as you allow users to post about astrology? After all, we don't really know if the structure of the skull can determine one's personality, just as we don't know if the month of birth can determine one's personality.

When an adult see's his child trying to stick his hand on the hot stove, the adult yells at the child and slaps the hand away. This is done for the sake of the child's survival. The adult does not have time to explain to the child the problem and guide him through a derivation of the truth in this case. Because survival actually takes a higher priority to truth, since you can't know truth without first surviving long enough to know it.

I would not allow it here because I run a certain kind of teaching organization here. For pragmatic purposes we have to limit things and be careful about how we invest our time. But the larger point is that truth cannot be institutionalized or formalized. The only way you can know if something is true if to leave the institution/organization/school and investigate it for yourself. By all means, go investigate phrenology on your own. You might learn something.

What you have to keep in mind is that I have a uniquely good ability for pursuing truth. Which is why Actualized.org exists at all. The reason you are here is because my mind is able to distinguish truth from falsehood better than the mind of 99% of other people. Of course this doesn't make me infallible, but you should understand how the pragmatics of this work. If I wasn't really good a sifting truth from falsehood, we wouldn't be here having this conversation. Of course none of this means anything unless you can access the truth directly for yourself. But the whole point of gurus is that they have a unique, way-above-average ability to distinguish truth from falsehood. Because they have an exceptionally powerful connection to Infinite Intelligence. Which is why they are valuable to mankind. Which is why they build massive followings. Formal scientific method will NEVER out-compete an intuitive connection to Infinite Intelligence. The problem with scientists is that most of them lack this connection. So they are essentially flying blind in the dark. They lack the inner light of consciousness. It doesn't have to be that way. They created that situation themselves by excommunicated and denouncing anyone with a deep inner light.

Basically, you are here paying me money for my exceptional connection to Infinite Intelligence. It boils down to that. My connection to Infinite Intelligence can help you build your own connection to Infinite Intelligence. Something much deeper then merely science is happening here when you learn from me. People will call me arrogant for saying that, but nevertheless, it is what it is. I'm am merely the messenger.

Quote

If you say we can rely on the experience of people who have gone into these things, then maybe scientists in the past have tried things like witchcraft and have discovered it's not a valid method. Not to mention there can be conflicting opinions, so do we just take the average of these opinions? Not to mention it what someone else tells can never be trusted.

This is called belief and hearsay. In practice you must rely on belief and hearsay to survive in life. But it has nothing to do with truth. If you want truth, you can only get that through personal investigation, not belief or hearsay. Any human you trust could turn out wrong. It's as simple as that. Truth cannot be grounded in any human source, including myself. Only YOU are the source of truth. Because in the end, you are Truth.

You assume scientists have tried things like witchcraft, but you could easily be wrong. After all, just 100 years ago people were killed for even speaking about witchcraft. And yet you think today it's understood and accepted? How gullible are you?

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura How do you reconcile the fact that even the science you're advocating is largely based on empiricism and the fact that empiricism is just a theory? Because according to the Wikipedia article below, empiricism is known by the senses, but theory is invented by the mind (ideas), so? Idealism suggests that reality comes from the mind, while empiricism suggests an independent universe.

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

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

Also how do you reconcile a working science within an immaterial universe? Isn't practicality/Empiricism a proof of materialism? Or at least a strong point that suggests materialism?

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Leo Gura How do you reconcile the fact that even the science you're advocating is largely based on empiricism and the fact that empiricism is just a theory?

The term empiricism is very problematic because it comes with much historical baggage and wrong ideas.

The science I advocate for isn't based on empiricism, it's based on CONSCIOUSNESS. Consciousness contains within it all experience, all phenomena, all data, anything measurable or knowable.

This is one of the paradigm shifts science has yet to make. Science is currently stuck in an empirical and pragmatic framework. We need to evolve it to a consciousness framework. This is very challenging to do because hardly anyone understands what consciousness is.

Quote

Also how do you reconcile a working science within an immaterial universe? Isn't practicality/Empiricism a proof of materialism? Or at least a strong point that suggests materialism?

Working science is completely independent of that question. You can do science inside a video game, virtual world, a dream, or an illusion.

In fact, all the science done by mankind has been done inside a dream. What scientists are really studying, without realizing it, is how to manipulate dreams.