Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[eggopm3]

How do you feel about Rupert Sheldrake's views? He makes many similar points about science. 

 

[Leo Gura]

Sheldrake is of course correct, but he does not go far enough. His critiques are too shallow.

[Victor van Rijn]

A short clip from Bentinho, his perspectives about science are more comparable to Leo's.

[Nahm]

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

“the harsh reality of not-knowing”. Thinking only covers up the fear underneath it, and the more thinking one does, the more fearful he is. To let go of fear and thinking is the biggest challenge in life. I can't do that, even though I am quite certain of what I'm saying. It's really, really hard.

Just let go of that one thought.  

[EternalForest]

@Leo Gura I'll hold my peace until the next episode, and ponder what you said in the meantime. Thanks for responding.

[Gesundheit]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

Just let go of that one thought.  

Not up to me, unfortunately.

[Nahm]

@Gesundheit

Sure it is. It’s a thought about yourself. Just like “not up to me unfortunately”. 

[Gesundheit]

25 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Gesundheit

Sure it is. It’s a thought about yourself. Just like “not up to me unfortunately”. 

???

[Jodistrict]

The hard sciences have intentionally chosen their reality tunnel in order to avoid wasting time on false and unfruitful paths. Science is a group project that includes the judgments of wise men spanning generations. For example, over the course of centuries, scientists decided that teleology was not a valid scientific explanation.  So you couldn’t explain a natural process as having goals.  You had to use efficient causality.  Another example, is with the advent of thermodynamics, perpetual motion machines were not considered valid explanations.   The methodology was not only productive, but they succeeded in blowing up their own tunnel with quantum mechanics, making a new paradigm possible.   
 

[Talinn]

My main critique is that I'm unconvinced it takes this long to deconstruct science. You did a good job in the first 1-2 hours, there was no need to drag it past that in my opinion. I'll watch the other videos, but I believe they will just beat a dead horse. 

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, Talinn said:

My main critique is that I'm unconvinced it takes this long to deconstruct science. You did a good job in the first 1-2 hours, there was no need to drag it past that in my opinion. I'll watch the other videos, but I believe they will just beat a dead horse. 

LOL

[Leo Gura]

38 minutes ago, Talinn said:

My main critique is that I'm unconvinced it takes this long to deconstruct science. You did a good job in the first 1-2 hours, there was no need to drag it past that in my opinion. I'll watch the other videos, but I believe they will just beat a dead horse. 

Well, you wrong.

I could do 100 hours on this topic and it would not be enough.

[Hello from Russia]

The problem is that most scientists don't actually value truth and don't have very strong integrity. There are too many corrupted publications where the results were deliberately crafted for some corporate conglomerates (You can research a ton of these in the healthcare/food/supplement industry). If a thing can be corrupted so easily, it is unreliable to put 100% trust in it. Especially as science researches contradict themselves every 10-20 years and have this cyclical nature to it (as you see in the food industry). It is really easily noticeable, yet most people don't bother to think about it on a meta-level, nor they bother to look into research papers itself to find flaws in the methods, they just collect random information from various blogs and then use whatever fits their beliefs the best. Scientific knowledge becomes more a matter of preference, not a matter of truth

This is the same as veganism, really. If all these factory farms had glass transparent walls, that anyone can look through and see what's going on here - most of us would be vegans. Or at least we'd revolutionize this industry for sure, would make something more conscious out of it

And if people actually bothered to look at how most scientists conduct research and what they actually make conclusions from - holy-shit, man. We would instantly drop all this overblown authority

Edited October 29, 2020 by Hello from Russia

[Zanoni]

I understand that this topic is about science in general. However i did read once a semi-spiritual explanation on why the second law of thermodynamics is false. The objection was that closed systems do not exists and i somehow forgot the explanation why. Does anyone have an idea why or did any reading about this topic?

[commie]

You've been exposed to pseudo-spiritual silliness. Closed system aren't intrinsically part of the law which was originally formulated without reference to such. Closed systems are simply a useful theoretical tool. You may have heard the spherical cow joke.

Wherever the word "exist" goes, confusion seems to arise in its wake. There is at best only one system that's not made up and it appears not to be closed. Systems are not waiting somewhere out there for people to stumble upon them and discover their properties. People imagine systems with arbitrary limits in order to come up with predictions and inventions. In pseudo-spiritual terms, the theoretical properties of a closed system can guide imagination towards useful dualities.

Edited October 30, 2020 by commie
you wanted reading: the wikipedia is often a good start

[Rilles]

Some logical fallacies I noticed Science used on itself. Maybe useful for the next video! Some have already been mentioned though. 

 

Slippery slope: "If we look into paranormal phenomena that means were going to start believing in a bunch of crazy hogwash!"

Ad hominems: Quacks, crazy, woo-woo. New agey. 

Black or white thinking: Science is the only method to understanding reality!

Appealing to authority: Sciencists at MIT says its true so it must be. "Experts say."

Begging the question: Science is the best method we have for understanding reality because its scientific. 

No true scotsman: Youre not a real scientist, thats not real science. 

Strawman: If youre not scientific youre religious or superstitious.

Cherry picking: Its valid science if it fits our worldview.

Poisoning the well: They are spiritual or religious so they have no valuable information. They just want your money. They are not accepted in the scientific community.

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by Rilles

[Rilles]

Appeal to nature fallacy: Almost all medicines are extractions from plants

https://www.thoughtco.com/drugs-and-medicine-made-from-plants-608413

[Enlightenment]

 

[Thewritersunion]

If philosophy created science, then what created philosophy (and so on) ?

[JosephKnecht]

@Leo Gura Your tone of voice when presenting the Science Series is very different from your other videos. Are you doing this on purpose? If yes, why? 

The content is great. Your insights are valuable and if written they would be perfect.  But your tone of voice is negative, almost as if you talking down to your viewers. I am wondering why?

I think if you presented the insights with a more loving tone of voice more people will be inclined to continue listening and it will have a more positive effect on them. 

After watching Part 3, you started looking like the guy in the video below. 

So my comment is now about what you said, but how you said it.