Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights — Page 9

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.

That science is a hallucination is a truth that lies outside of science. No amount of doing science will get science to see that it is a hallucination. This is an issue of self-reflection. The only way science can realize that it is a hallucination is through profound self-reflection, which science refuses to do because scientific group-think has convinced today’s scientists that self-reflection is not science and a distraction from science. Therefore, science is stuck. Science is stuck and lost until it realizes its profound epistemic error in marginalizing self-reflection. As it turns out, self-reflection is more important than, more fundamental than, all of science. If the only thing you had was self-reflection and no science, you could still know the Truth. But if all you had was science and no self-reflection, you would be deluded until your physical death. You could not even know the true nature of science! That’s how important self-reflection is.

The only way for science to know its true nature is not through science but through self-reflection. Science refuses to understand this because it would be suicidal and scientists are closedminded cowards.