Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights — Page 3

“But Leo, you criticize science for being unscientific, but aren’t you yourself unscientific when you do so?” This is not a contradiction for me because I never professed to be “scientific”. I don’t have the burden of "being scientific”. That's not a bug but a feature of my work. Scientists place that burden upon themselves, I don't. But once you place that label upon yourself, you've opened yourself to having your hypocrisy pointed out to you. So is it wise to place that label upon yourself? I only call scientists unscientific because they call others unscientific so readily. That is their phony standard, not mine. But if they use it, I will use it on them, so they get a taste of their own medicine. I would not use it otherwise. I simply use their own weapon against them. It's intellectual Jiu-Jitsu. If you're going to stab me with that knife, don't be surprised when I pull it out of me and stab you back. That's how lessons are learned.

My point is that “being scientific” is human bullshit. I don’t defend human bullshit; scientists do. They are in contradiction, I am not in contradiction for pointing this out to them. I don’t need to be scientific because science is not my God. My God is Consciousness. When you worship the wrong God, shit happens.

The simple point is, "being scientific" is a bullshit notion. Throw it out. You don't need it. It is limiting your Mind. So what should you be instead? Be truthful. Just be truthful. After all, Truth is God.

Scientists have forgotten that their loyalty should be to Truth, not to science. It's such an elementary epistemic mistake. That's why it's tragic. But what makes it doubly tragic is that when this is pointed out to them, they dismiss it as "unscientific". That is the unforgivable part. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The tragedy is that the very medicine that would cure science of its disease, they refuse to swallow because their diseased mind calls it "unscientific". That is the epitome of paradigm-lock. The disease blinds you to the cure.

"But Leo! Isn't it a contradiction to criticize science when science gave you the technology you use to criticize it, like computers and video cameras?" Not as much of a contradiction as it is to call God "unscientific" when God gave you the universe. When science corrects its contradiction, my contradiction will disappear because there will no longer be a reason to criticize science. Pointing out problems in the foundations of science is not and cannot be a contradiction even if I use scientific technology. After all, doesn't science claim to be self-correcting? Well then, enjoy your correction while I enjoy the technology.

Science is not winning this argument. So give it up. Check mate.

The following is an example of scientists misusing science. I mean that Sabine Hossenfelder and Alexander Unzicker are both misusing the notion of falsifability under the  guise of "real science". They dismiss theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity under the rationale that they are unfalsifiable and therefore "unscientific", however, it is impossible to know whether a theory is unfalsifiable. Just because you can't imagine how to, or lack the technology to falsify it today, does not mean that it is unfalsifiable. You can't dismiss a theory or perspective just because it feels unfalsifiable to you. And that's all it is in this case, a feeling. So the irony here is that these scientists are criticizing what they feel is bad science, but their criticism IS the bad science. It is bad science to close your mind to a theory just because you lack the imagination to see how it might be falsified. Scientists misuse this notion of unfalsifiability commonly. It is just closedmindedness. It is a highly rationalized "scientific"-flavored closedmindedness. This is a real-world example of how rationalism turns into self-deception. An example of the stupidity of overly rational people.

This is what I mean when I say science is unscientific. The scientist "cries out in pain as he strikes you." Any time you hear a scientist cry out "unscientific!", you should immediately ask, "But is your crying 'unscientific!' itself scientific?" Almost always the answer will be: No, it's just a feeling.

Calling a perspective "crap" without scientifically demonstrating that it is crap, is of course unscientific. However, most scientists feel perfectly comfortable doing this precisely as they cry about others being unscientific. It is a sick kind of gaslighting that comes from epistemic sloppiness.

Perhaps string theory is crap, but the issue is, they don't actually know that, they are just guessing and calling it science. This is what happens when scientists refuse to take philosophy seriously. The rejection of philosophy guarantees bad philosophy. I wanted to show you a real-world example of that, so now you have it.

Understanding Reality requires way more intelligence than just looking at a perspective and saying, "This looks unfalsifiable to me, so it's crap". Are you crazy?! You can't solve epistemology like that!

Epistemic slop ends in scientific slop.

Every time I get a new insight, I write it down in my phone in a text file. I just counted it for the first time. I have 450,000 words, or 1000 pages of these insights. These are not my notes on others peoples' work, these are just the insights I generate from contemplation. I generate so much insight that I don’t have time to publish it all. For every 1 insight I publish, 3-5 insights go unpublished. This does not include the insights generated for my YouTube videos. This is just the non-video insights.

Jeffrey Mishlove is doing great wok. He's one of the rare academic PhD types who is openminded enough to understand mysticism and God. Of course he does not work inside of academia any more for that reason. I recommend you explore his channel because it has many great spiritual interviews like this one:

Even the most ardent scientist has to admit that there is such a thing as scientific hogwash. You cannot deny that within science exists science which is not science but pseudo-science. No, I'm not talking about New Age woo, I'm talking about what passes as actual science among scientists. But once you admit that, you’re cooked, because you have no way to know that your version of science is not that. Scientists are overlooking the simple point that what they regard as the truest science, is actually just hogwash with scientific flavor. No evidence or logic can save you from this trap. That’s because, fundamentally you never knew what science was. You always just assumed. You never thought this assumption would come back to bite you in the ass as badly as will. No scientist has EVER known what science was! NEVER! NOT ONE! That is the elephant in the room.

Here is the billion dollar question: How do you know that what you think is science is actually science? What if your entire understanding of what science is, is just wrong?! After all, why should it be right? Humans have NEVER known what science was! They just did trial and error to find whatever works. Newton spent more time doing alchemy that physics. How do you know alchemy isn't science? That is not as obvious as any scientist thinks it is. If you think that's obvious, you haven't understood the depth of the epistemology here.

How does a human being know that alchemy isn't science? Who told you?! Who do you believe and why do you believe them? Have you done alchemy? Then you don't know! If you don't know, why are you calling it unscientific? Calling a thing unscientific when you don't really know, is scientific hogwash.