Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[Dazgwny]

I’m finding it very difficult to come up with any objections to this science series so far and the points made in it. It’s like everything you begin to contemplate or try to find something to object to, the deeper you go with your contemplations I find myself coming to the same conclusions as what’s being stated in the videos. Infact most if not all of what he’s saying is so blatantly obvious it makes you wonder just how stupid and gullible you’ve been for the past god knows how many years, depending on your age. At the same time though you have to make sure your not being as gullible in the same type of way as to Leo’s deconstruction of science and just not believe it straight up. I can’t help though but just agree with just about everything, if not everything I’ve heard so far in the series though. So much is just so obvious even with just a little contemplation 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Dazgwny

[Anderz]

Another thing Leo hasn't mentioned is alternative research in science. For example the systemic and inherent incentive for the healthcare industry, which by the way probably funds the major scientific research in this area, is to keep people as sick as possible and for as long as possible so that they can maintain and increase their profit.

Cardiovascular disease is a huge problem in the western world. Does the healthcare industry benefit from solving that problem? Not at all. So it's beneficial for them to teach an outdated and false model of the cardiovascular system to students who then later become medical doctors. One expert said that the heart is actually not a pump. The heart is more like a break, he said. And compare it with a tree for example. Does the tree have a pump at the bottom to pump water into the leaves at the top? Of course not. Similarly, in the human cardiovascular system the arteries have thick musculature and a high pressure. Veins have thinner musculature and medium pressure. The capillary beds have zero musculature and low pressure.  So how is the blood transported from the capillary beds to the veins and then into the heart? If the idea of the heart being a break is true, then the blood is sucked automatically through a capillary effect together with venous valves and musculature movements in the veins into the heart, which in turn causes a vortex movement of the blood and into the elastic aorta to balance the pressure.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Anderz

[Anderz]

Here is a statement from the horse's mouth, the editor in chief of The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world:

Quote

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness." - https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

 

[Anderz]

I think that Leo dismisses conspiracy theories too easily. To label people as conspiracy theorists to be burned at the stake figuratively speaking is to miss the deeper manipulation in society. For example modern science was probably invented by the Vatican as controlled opposition, just like how the Vatican created Protestantism as controlled opposition.

[Danioover9000]

@ajai

On 10/16/2020 at 5:53 PM, ajai said:

Yes the upcoming series will be juicy and will catch eyes of a lot and will also make the chairs of many tremble.

"The Limits of Science" sounds so cool huh.

But how naive would it be to consider the works in Science as if something that's already done and that there's no scope of improvement further in this work. Science says nothing but the method lies on the foundation that without empirical evidence nothing can be labelled as "True" or something that exist or don't exist in reality. In a way it's Consciousness work as well, Scientists are also expanding there consciousness as every decade pass, athough imo there's no substantial work in science since Einstein's relativity but it doesn't mean that the work has stopped, and that Scientists are misleading us in some way or they have started to use science as a Religion(maybe some are) and that Science is a new cult (for them who say this they don't know what cult means or how it works). But I'd ask where on earth you won't find cult, it's everywhere if there are humans there's cult in some way or another because majority is not so good at understanding things, so where there's a lack of understanding you will find something wrong or dysfunctional going on, and that dysfunctionality shouldn't be considered as something evil or bad, for becoming more n more conscious it's sooo necessary, if there was no dysfunctionality how in the world you'd know what's functional, and to deconstruct Science I don't get it, because deconstruction could be done to something physical or something that can be brokendown into pieces, why does it only have to be Science and let alone 'all' of Science, How many Sciences are there? is it singular plural or what? I don't know.

I don't want to see this blame game and saving my team sort of mentality where the so-called "Spiritual" workers going against "Science" workers and vice-versa. For me both, both methods are part of CONSCIOUSNESS and hence any investigative method can be used for becoming more Conscious because they are nothing but the Same, I can give Science the name "SPIRITUALITY" and spirituality as "SCIENCE" in my own domain it doesn't matter, because they are all the same in a sense each integrates itself and the other, they look different because of our own perspectives and paradigm locks, for those who are stuck in their own pardaigm lock don't you dare to think that you know everything about every domain like Science, Social Science, Literature or whatever you don't, and even though you know each one of them but still you don't because you only know that from what others have taught, thought or from their works, what is your own contribution? how n why did any of you stumble upon Actualized.org or any other resource of great Consciousness work, wht were the factors involved, they were so many that you yourself don't know, and even then when we talk about Science and Theory of Relativity how many of us know about Relativity completely and how it works, we should be grateful that there was someone like Einstein who gave us this lense to see Reality and made all other contemporary scientist baffled with his work, for those other scientists they were too sure about the "surety" of their work that THIS IS IT! we got it, but no time n time again people like Einstein have proved that there's so much that is yet unknown, and that for an individual being it's impossible in his lifetime to know it all it never happened and will never happen in future either, for every great discovery there's another profound one waiting for which the current one lays the foundation and shows us the path where to go, Einstein wasn't born in 1 A.D. (Jesus did) he was born in 1879 A.D. so years n years n years of work led to the great discovery of our beloved Theory of Relativity ( used OUR on purpose ) ,

So the need here is to ask questions that are out of the box, think intensively before you write any question don't ask the already asked stupid questions ( I can't because I consider myself noob in Science ) , that asking should reflect how much you know about science, because I consider it serious given the work style and how it is with Scientific Investigation literally.

I would say this assertively, THERE'S NO LIMITS TO SCIENCE, and to say that there is you have to say all of that LIMITED that's there in your cognition and even if it's something that you experience under psychedelics influence because some consider it "radical" and "profound" and for them "some" it also is and very crucial facet to undergo I get that.

There could be advances in Sciences tomorrow that will make even the most advanced "Spiritual" masters of today (dark ages) scared to death, so watch out, it's all about growing those who will not grow will be left out and will become redundant no matter what label they put, labels have nothing to do with CONSCIOUSNESS or what is TRUTH.

I forgot to mention even the substances like LSD were the product of this investigative method called as "Science" so just see if you scapegoat the whole discipline and ridicule it to death because it's not a scrupture that is already build yet and it will never build completely, it's one brick on top of another till infinity. It's the limit of your understanding of SCIENCE that's making it limited.

P.S. My current understanding is a matter of subject to change in future.

   Wow, beautifully written. It's true that LSD, new spiritual tool of consciousness work, was created in a scientific laboratory with the assumptions being it would allow soldiers to be more efficient at killing. Then they ran that experiment, and ended up with a completely different result.

   Some question I have:

   If science is all illusory, then why, on every domain of science, has the consistency of reproducing results? For example, if physics is illusory, then why can't a physical object pass through a physical object?

   Since science has filled most of the vacuum of influence religion has left, what would soon replace science in the future?

   How could science be any other way, than appeals to authority? We've had a history of some genius scientists that have done the majority of the work for their insight, and here we are, each domain of science, in this era, standing on their graves.

   If consensus is false, and direct experience is truth, then is there a way to reconcile the two? 

[Anderz]

Conspiracy info tends to get too messy too quickly, so that's a good reason for excluding it. Or else it gets too confusing. I just wanted to throw in a little bit of that to cover all the bases in relation to science.

But another thing that I heard Leo saying is that 1+1=2 is only a relative truth. Can't the natural numbers be seen as platonic forms, meaning that they timelessly exist as absolute Forms?

Quote

"The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas.[4] According to this theory, ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as "Ideas" or "Forms",[5] are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations." - Wikipedia

 

[Leo Gura]

@Danioover9000 That's like saying: If the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth, why doesn't the Earth not just fall out of the sky? And what will replace science to tell us how the Earth moves?

What replaces bad science is better science.

[ajai]

@Danioover9000 Well good questions.

I would like to answer a few based on what I think,

first, I would say Science is not illusory and if there's anybody saying that it is, then ofc they don't really understand what Science is.

This series( Deconstructing the myth of Science) has affected my thinking a lot, and it's such a privilege that we really have someone to show us the way and guide us, and that too for the betterment of the discipline.

9 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Since science has filled most of the vacuum of influence religion has left, what would soon replace science in the future?

Science is just like Democracy there's no bar where the progress will or must stop and it's not static just like Democracy isn't static, it's just the matter of correct understanding and more inclusiveness that disciplines like Science become more useful and helpful for seeking true wisdom.

Religion has it's own values and Scientific approach in Religion can revolutionize that particular domain of lifestyle as well.

Time and Time again when the progress of a particular discipline becomes stagnant, there's always a need to pull it out da dig and the one who tries to do it is seen as Rebel and the one who is against the existent ethics and morals of the discipline(Blasphemous), but as we know history is quite evident that to bring in changes take time but changes do happen eventually, that's just the nature of Reality or Creation as such.

9 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

If consensus is false, and direct experience is truth, then is there a way to reconcile the two?

When we say direct experience that is just what the Science is truly, Science just doesn't have to be only a language that is written in an esoteric obscure jargon, it could be as simple as doing Exercise in the morning or eating food and your body digesting it it's happening really, isn't it, you or anybody digest food and body rejuvenates and get ready for work.

Whenever we make distinctions ignorantly just for the sake of fulfilment of Self-Identity aka Ego, then that is where the problem lies.

Regards.

Edited November 13, 2020 by ajai

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Danioover9000 That's like saying: If the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth, why doesn't the Earth not just fall out of the sky? And what will replace science to tell us how the Earth moves?

What replaces bad science is better science.

   What do you mean a sun, and an orbit?

   Is the sky like a table, that helps the earth roll like a ball? Or is the earth so gigantic we don't feel it's falling?

   That's like saying religion would be replaced with religion. Science had replaced the majority of religion, a thing in the past the majority didn't know is called science. So what emerging field would replace science the same way science replaced most religion while not being so well known?

   If you still mean bad science being replaced with good science, what counts as good science? And wouldn't this be a pragmatic style of question begging? Because a bad religious group could be replaced with a good religious group, but that was a surface level replacement which I can defend as enough change and no more new development here because this is a really good religious group.

[Danioover9000]

@ajai

11 hours ago, ajai said:

@Danioover9000 Well good questions.

I would like to answer a few based on what I think,

first, I would say Science is not illusory and if there's anybody saying that it is, then ofc they don't really understand what Science is.

This series( Deconstructing the myth of Science) has affected my thinking a lot, and it's such a privilege that we really have someone to show us the way and guide us, and that too for the betterment of the discipline.

Science is just like Democracy there's no bar where the progress will or must stop and it's not static just like Democracy isn't static, it's just the matter of correct understanding and more inclusiveness that disciplines like Science become more useful and helpful for seeking true wisdom.

Religion has it's own values and Scientific approach in Religion can revolutionize that particular domain of lifestyle as well.

Time and Time again when the progress of a particular discipline becomes stagnant, there's always a need to pull it out da dig and the one who tries to do it is seen as Rebel and the one who is against the existent ethics and morals of the discipline(Blasphemous), but as we know history is quite evident that to bring in changes take time but changes do happen eventually, that's just the nature of Reality or Creation as such.

When we say direct experience that is just what the Science is truly, Science just doesn't have to be only a language that is written in an esoteric obscure jargon, it could be as simple as doing Exercise in the morning or eating food and your body digesting it it's happening really, isn't it, you or anybody digest food and body rejuvenates and get ready for work.

Whenever we make distinctions ignorantly just for the sake of fulfilment of Self-Identity aka Ego, then that is where the problem lies.

Regards.

   Is science only direct experience? I could just have the foods I eat in my culture, but on the other hand, I could learn types of food groups from the education system regarding nutrition, how often, from teachers/peers and books, or I could think about foods, or follow my intuition on what to eat. Which is more scientific: direct experience, concepts, reasoning or intuition?

   If science is not illusory, then how is it possible for both the improvements to occur within science, and for history to record such changes? For example, let's take the scientific method. First it is learnt in family or your education so it is a thing, then you research/study within that education, causing the mind to further internalize that particular method. If taken further, you might research the scientific method outside the schooling context, and you might discover other methodologies with some differences with the epistemic approaches to the scientific method, so instead of the following: Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and result, you'd find another education system rearrange the order: Hypothesis, observation, experimentation, and result. Or some additions like peer review at the end. Whatever is discovered, is recorded in some way. So, if there's no illusory nature to science, then how is it possible to record or remember a result, or how to do each step of the experiment process?

   If science is not illusory, then how could I hypothesize and predict and outcome? Or how do I account for inconsistences within observation, if it does happen? 

[Anderz]

@Leo Gura Leo, if I remember correctly, you said that science has a mistaken notion of time. One major mistake I believe is that in science it's taken for granted that there is a past outside of the now, yet our direct experience is of the past as information in the now and only in the now. So the belief that there is a past outside of the now is actually a redundant concept.

[Gabor Bardosi]

On 11/13/2020 at 7:15 PM, Danioover9000 said:

@Leo Gura

   What do you mean a sun, and an orbit?

   Is the sky like a table, that helps the earth roll like a ball? Or is the earth so gigantic we don't feel it's falling?

   That's like saying religion would be replaced with religion. Science had replaced the majority of religion, a thing in the past the majority didn't know is called science. So what emerging field would replace science the same way science replaced most religion while not being so well known?

   If you still mean bad science being replaced with good science, what counts as good science? And wouldn't this be a pragmatic style of question begging? Because a bad religious group could be replaced with a good religious group, but that was a surface level replacement which I can defend as enough change and no more new development here because this is a really good religious group.

Can i replace god with a better god? How science can replace religion? Is this a must have property of god? How can i be blamed for not believe in a personal god or I'm a god if i forgot it?  How can i blame myself as a god if i don't believe in myself and in my god attributes? Why I can not be just human? Why believers of inside or outside god blaming criticizing hating and demonizing atheist like me? Please name one additional "common" properties or attributes of atheist other than not believe in god.

The only reason why I quoted you because... reasons. My questions not about your reasoning. I loved it very much. Can I say "I'm capable of love". As Leo put it in a video "99.999999....% of people" does not understand me. How godlike is this? I saw all the videos until the trippy thing started to increase I know i have to imagine to take some stuff i don't want to....

it is not intended as a gish gallop

Edited November 14, 2020 by Gabor Bardosi
adding one word :"common"

[Anderz]

One thing Leo perhaps didn't mention is that science has a problem with defining life. I think it's really simple! Life requires consciousness. If there is manifestation without consciousness, then that manifestation is lifeless. So life isn't distinguished by organic vs inorganic matter. Instead life is the result of consciousness being aware of manifested reality. Or maybe Leo has already included a similar explanation his videos.

[Anderz]

Another observation is that to say that the map is not the territory is only a surface conceptual distinction. The map and the territory are actually one at the more fundamental level of reality. It gets almost absurd at that level. For example a thought and a physical iPhone are the same content experienced in consciousness so even such different things on the ordinary experiential level are one at the fundamental level of reality. And it's more than just semantics I think.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Anderz said:

One thing Leo perhaps didn't mention is that science has a problem with defining life. I think it's really simple! Life requires consciousness. If there is manifestation without consciousness, then that manifestation is lifeless. So life isn't distinguished by organic vs inorganic matter. Instead life is the result of consciousness being aware of manifested reality. Or maybe Leo has already included a similar explanation his videos.

The problem of defining anything comes from the act of defining it. Definitions divide reality into separate parts. Life can only be defined relative to non-life. Why can't everything be alive? Well, science doesn't care about that, because it isn't practical. Even if it was the truth, you can't bottle it up and sell it on the market, or use it to make better technology (or atleast that is how it stands today).

[Anderz]

@Carl-Richard That's a good point. I have been thinking of: what is the definition of definition? Sounds almost funny but it shows the inherent circular problem with scientific models.

And Leo has already talked a lot about consciousness as direct subjective experience which is prior to any models. But I wanted bring up the question about life vs nonliving objects in science. Life is because of consciousness! That was the realization that came to me today.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Anderz

[Jodistrict]

I recommend reading Shinzen Young’s recent book to get a valuable insight into this subject.  Shinzen’s life goal is to integrate meditation with Western science.  He makes a distinction between “objective science” and “subjective science”, and he sees the Buddha as a subjective scientist.    Shinzen also believes in the possibility of using technology as part of a scientific method for achieving enlightenment.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Enlightenment-How-Meditation-Works-ebook/dp/B01KUGQYJO/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=shinzen+young&qid=1605638117&sr=8-1
 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Jodistrict

[Danioover9000]

@Gabor Bardosi

On 11/14/2020 at 11:38 PM, Gabor Bardosi said:

Can i replace god with a better god? How science can replace religion? Is this a must have property of god? How can i be blamed for not believe in a personal god or I'm a god if i forgot it?  How can i blame myself as a god if i don't believe in myself and in my god attributes? Why I can not be just human? Why believers of inside or outside god blaming criticizing hating and demonizing atheist like me? Please name one additional "common" properties or attributes of atheist other than not believe in god.

The only reason why I quoted you because... reasons. My questions not about your reasoning. I loved it very much. Can I say "I'm capable of love". As Leo put it in a video "99.999999....% of people" does not understand me. How godlike is this? I saw all the videos until the trippy thing started to increase I know i have to imagine to take some stuff i don't want to....

it is not intended as a gish gallop

1. Based on pantheistic modals of multiple gods, and mythology stories, deities can be replaced by better deities. In today's era, deities, the one God, are not as venerated as the brain or the universe. Also, if it involves you, I don't know for sure, but I along anybody can think up a better god, but just a concept. Otherwise, how can it be that, as a culture advances, so does the images of deities we worship? Just don't tell someone you can, or you might risk getting hit...

2. Science has replaced religion in terms of practicality, data collecting, and more lengthy and complex reasoning. What solutions were practical in religion, if the problem was injury, or disease? What other poofs and evidences for certain happenings does a priest/monk have other than from scripture or holy books?

3. I don't what a must have property of god could be like.  

[Anderz]

Another problem is how science is taught to students. In a childish way science is prompted up as an incredible fortress of authority while virtually all the unsolved problems in science are conveniently swept under the rug to give students the impression that science has the answers to how reality works. No teacher mentions for example that the three-body problem in physics cannot be solved analytically, or the coronal heating problem of the sun or as Leo mentioned in one of his videos that causality is an unsolved problem in science and in philosophy.

[Raphael]

Isn't it that there is a minimum common reality?

After all if a group of people can communicate, coordinate and live together by using tools like language and social norms, it means that they perceive reality similarly. At least if they are part of the same culture and are a minimum functioning.

In this case science is true for them if they at least adhere to the same cultural standards. But relative from group to groups.