Radical science

>>18929270
dogma?

>>18929282
>dogma
dogma
ˈdɒɡmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

>>18929270
Looks that way, but you know, I think its always good to have people with different opinions. I also think people are silly for not learning from their own experiences, thinking they're going to find meaning in some book our out there in the external world.

But we will have to see what happens

>>18929270
Humans wanting to understand the way things work is purely ego driven, we simply don't need to know.

They will get to the point where they will stop looking because they will see the Universe complicates itself when they try to observe it.

>>18929270
Science has been a religion for quite some time.

>>18929270
For some, it has.

I support the use of science as a tool, it's incredibly useful and life-improving, but I think that usefulness has been mistaken for 'truth' and become an ideology unto itself, and I do think that's not good, especially for people's minds.

Because if your ideology takes after a very mechanical process like science (it's brute force experimentation, after all), you're gonna see the world as brute force mechanisms, because that's how the language frames them. Because people will see that they're part of the universe but due to the language used not really comprehend it, sighing disappointed that they live in a 'cold, emotionless, uncaring universe', not recognizing that their emotions and what they care about are by necessity PART of the universe.

>>18929541
Indeed, it just that is more notorious now

Science and religion go hand and hand, people are just too retarded to understand.

>>18929270
any true scientist knows that human understanding of the universe is in its infancy at best
Science isn't an end all be all, it's just what we know so far. a work in progress

the problem is when people confuse incompleteness with incorrectness because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear

>>18929270
Only if people choose to see it that way. Science doesn't have all the answers and doesn't claim to, it just looks for them and updates its best educated guess as it gets new information. But if people continue to kick and scream and demand absolute "real" answers, they're going to take whatever sounds the most authoritative to them. So if science gets treated like a god, it's not science's fault. It's the fault of the people who insist on treating it like a god.

>>18929270
Science ain't no religion. Peeps who don't do science, and somehow always believe in the Creator being a person, can't grasp someone being without.
Science is just a vision, that can change in an eyeblink and no one will care or punish you for it.
Science is not to be followed or believed, it is to be put to the test and to be kicked around.
That is the thing with people who do not get science. All a scientist wants is to proven wrong. That means someone finally took his work serious. When it can not be proven wrong, also good, then his or her work can be used by others.
Win win situation.
Religious people hate testing. . . the impostors.
The only thing they test is if the New Testament fits the Old Testament. Of course it does. What does that prove? Other then the writers of the New know the Old ? Nothing. It proves totally zero. They are to ignorant for science.

File: 1478872494302.jpg (29KB, 434x325px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 434x325px

>>18929270
Since science has to be tested to be counted as such, no, probably not.
The problem (one of them) with religion is that it has no actual basis other than "its like this because we say so".
"Science" is a discipline that attempts to prove or disprove ideas via experimentation, eventually reaching some sort of plausible truth.

Uneducated mobs shouting SCIENCE at everything without studying the cases themselves? Yeah that would be a problem, but theres really nothing we can do about it, sadly.

File: A8F17EEE-19C4-48E2-B0EA-F2AF85549389-425-000000776DFBA210.png (659KB, 1055x808px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 1055x808px

>>18931138
No you fucking retard.
You're rhe retarded one if you believe "faith" and trust in ancient dogmas based on "spiritual" experiences has anywhere near the credibility if tests, experiments, logic, and mathematics.
>KILL YOU ARE SELF

>>18929270
real science went underground a long time ago, what we have now is just various cults and group think.

>>18931180
>underage detected

>>18931181
Interesting, never thought about it like that. A hidden place in spacetime for real science.

>>18929270
Yes, specially because people can't understand science to its full extent.

>>18931190
nope
18 here
if you want to construct an arguement without 1-sentence greentext I'm willing to listen.
Did jesus come back and split an atom over the children of Japan?
No. Science did. The natural laws of the universe are God.
Kill yourself.

Not while science remains in its current state.

Modern science is pretty fucking shit compared to what it once was. It used to be the case that anyone with a sharp mind and a bit of time to spare could potentially make meaningful contributions to the project of science. Nowadays, all the low-hanging fruit is gone and any further scientific breakthroughs require large sums of money, and so rich people and institutions with particular economic and political goals are able to influence science and turn it into a tool that works for their interests. This leads to public loss of faith in the institution of science.

File: 1409049519393.jpg (81KB, 406x537px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 406x537px

>>18931208
>nope
>18 here

>>18931314
Interesting point. Any examples of how science is used for special interests? I'm guessing climate change can be applied to this. Not denying it's existence, but just assuming there is a connection to some form of corruption or special interest.

>>18931342
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/01/17/corporations-manipulating-research-discredit-scientists.aspx
>James Cresswell, Ph.D., a pollination ecology researcher with the University of Exeter in England, had a different take on the matter, however. He spoke openly to the Times about his relationship with the pesticide giant, which included Syngenta-funded research into what's causing bee colonies to die.
>Cresswell's foray into the world of corporate-funded research started when his initial research caused him to question whether neonicotinoid pesticides were to blame for bee deaths.
>The chemicals, which are produced by Bayer and Syngenta, have been implicated in the decline of bees, particularly in commercially bred species like honeybees and bumblebees (though they've been linked to population changes in wild bees as well). In 2012, Syngenta offered to fund further research by Cresswell on the link.
>It was an offer Cresswell felt he couldn't refuse. "I was pressured enormously by my university to take that money," Cresswell told the Times. "It's like being a traveling salesman and having the best possible sales market and telling your boss, 'I'm not going to sell there.' You can't really do that."
>When he reported the findings to Syngenta, they pushed back, suggesting he tweak the study in various ways, such as looking at specific loss data in beehives instead of bee stock trends and focusing on data from specific countries or only in Europe, as opposed to worldwide.
>After the parameters were changed, varroosis became a significant factor in bee colony losses, according to Cresswell's research. It's a clear-cut example of how scientific research can be easily manipulated to fit the sponsor's agenda, a practice that's well known to occur in pharmaceutical research.

>>18931342
Honestly a glaring example for me was watching vegan documentaries backed with legit scientific research (results paid for beforehand of course) about how bad dairy is then looking into it and finding legit scientific research from the dairy industry (results paid for of course) about how healthy dairy is for you. Then you find out most peer reviewed studies that get published are only ever published by I believe it was three different companies (so three companies decided whether the study is seen by others or not which is a control of information) and you start realizing how easily bought the process is

>>18931452
we will never advance as a species until behavior like this is met with death.

>>18929270
No. Science doesn't offer us any real "absolute truth" and any movement that truly asserts that would be shot down by academic continental philosophers across the board. Religion is about exaltation of the metaphysical world and this is done by using stories and discourse; it's what we leverage to make the most of ourselves existentially speaking. Science can't fill that roll ever. That's not to say these two forces have to work in opposition.

File: dxyf49.jpg (10KB, 292x330px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 292x330px

Consider the great number of people who are now leaving the church at the behest of science. Most of these individuals declare their reason for dissenting to the dictates of theology is that the dogma of the church has proved to be philosophically and scientifically unsound. The belief is quite prevalent that nearly all scientists are agnostics, if not atheists, because they refuse to subscribe to the findings of early theologians. Thus the mind must descend from credulity to absolute incredulity before it is prepared to assume the onus of individual thinking.
On the other hand, the scientist who has really entered into the spirit of his labors has found God. Science has revealed to him a supertheology. It has discovered the God of the swirling atoms; not a personal Deity but an all-permeating, all-powerful, impersonal Creative Agent akin to the Absolute Being of occult philosophy. Thus the little tin god on his golden throne falls to make way for an infinite Creative Principle which science vaguely senses and which philosophy can reveal in fuller splendor.

From Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, Manly Palmer Hall.

>>18931473
>Then you find out most peer reviewed studies that get published are only ever published by I believe it was three different companies (so three companies decided whether the study is seen by others or not which is a control of information)

this is incorrect.

>#sciencenotsilence !!!
>women's studies major

>>18931452
More detailed source
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/business/scientists-loved-and-loathed-by-syngenta-an-agrochemical-giant.html
>>18931342
I don't have any links on hand, but I suspect green energy research is designed to make alternative energy seem better than it really is. Of course, this might just be because the scientists involved are subconciously biased in favor of green energy. Generally speaking, science is more likely to agree with any given idea if that idea forms part of the beliefs held by whatever social group most scientists come from at the time.

File: enhanced-buzz-wide-16818-1366223344-16.jpg (457KB, 990x687px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 990x687px

>>18929290
That's true people are independent thinkers if you teach them that it's an option.

>>18929302
I have a working curiosity, sue me.

>>18929541
Scholars also happen to like religious texts just as much as they like fiction or poetry.

>>18929921
They undermine the experience by over explaining it.

>>18931138
True.

>>18931147
It claims that it can answer everything becuase it's rooted in a materialistic positivism.

>>18931155
Not all religions are abrahamic.

>>18931174
I like shouting SCIENCE, sue me.

>>18931181
Exactly, it lived on religion shadow just like religion it's living in science shadow now.

>>18931208
It's tough to think that Jesus was also there.

>>18931452
This it's usually an issue of the state of funding for hard sciences, so people end up working for private enterprises.

>>18931494
Neat.

>>18931496
It kind of is, the korean clone case it's a good example of it.

>>18931553
If you don't sell green energy no one will buy it.

>>18931577
thats the worst kind of faggotry

>>18929270
Only if the vast majority of people are rendered too stupid and lazy to learn to employ the core principles of verification and repeat-ability. In short, for science to become dogmatic, people would have to forget how to actually employ scientific methodology. And even then it wouldn't really be science becoming dogmatic, but some conclusions reached via science before people forgot how to do a science.

>>18929270
It has already happened and it has been happening ever since the so called "enlightenment".

>>18931644
No it hasn't. Ignorant people just like to make that claim to excuse their lack of education.

>>18929541
>science doesn't buy into my particular brand of bullshit
>they want actual evidence beyond "Well, it just FEELS right" and "Well, my uncle's friend's cousin says his friend was cursed by a gypsy woman"
>therefore they're dogmatic illuminati shills

>>18931785
>poisoning the well this hard
>not dogmatic

>>18931785
Don't forget "Well, this guy who has no relevant education on (topic), and is best known for writing a book about the time he allegedly recieved knowledge from a higher-dimensional being, says so"

>>18931602
Autistic multireplies?

>>18931806
Good lord, I can hear the "SHILL GET OUT REEEEEEEE!" from here.

>>18931806
>wanting actually useful evidence in support of claims made, ideally as free from confirmation bias as possible
>dogmatic

>>18929270
Absolutely not. It doesn't have the capability of taking the place of religion since it's only a process of investigation and taxonomy of the physical world.

A science-infused New Age spirituality with an emphasis on ecological harmony, collective consciousness/universal connectedness, and humanism will. This will be different than most religions since there won't be metaphysical baggage, maybe some sort of vague pantheism or mysticism at most but nothing dogmatic.

File: 17921480.gif (2MB, 307x192px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 307x192px

>dude it will be just like star trek
>remove all religion and surely scientific process will increase TENFOLD
>ATHEIST UTOPIA BY 2070!!

religion is stupid but you gotta be joking if you think everything scientists tell you is the truth

>>18931947

AND I DONT WANNA TALK TO A SCIENTIST, THOSE MOFUCKAS LYING, AND GETTING ME PISSED

-Shaggy 2 Dope (Insane Clown Posse)

>>18931832
exactly

>>18931836
>more well poisoning and baseless assumptions
>not dogmatic

>>18931947
The nice thing about science is that they lay out their evidence for you and you can reproduce it if you want. So it makes no sense for them to lie.

>>18932169
Well, unless they're just relying on people to be stupid and/or lazy to bother with it, which does happen.

But yeah, the fundamental difference is
Science : "Well try it yourself. You should get the same results and if not, we'll figure out why there's a discrepancy." vs.
Religion : "You'll just have to trust me on this and have faith despite there being absolutely no real reason to believe any of this."

>>18932169
>evidence cant be manipulated
>every experiment/measurement is easily reproducable by anybody
Not saying everything is fake, but there were enough cases of bullshittery and the scientific community having problems to be a bit more sceptic about shit

>>18932198
>evidence can't be manipulated

No, it can be. That's why it needs to be reproducible by people who aren't manipulating it.

>reproduced easily

Who said it had to be easy? As long as it's reproducible, it's valid.

>but there were enough cases of bullshittery and the scientific community having problems

Real problems or imaginary problems like area 51 or chemtrails?

>>18931140
>>18929270

Well this is it : science is like war or religion or politic , it's a concept, it's not a religion, when people are shown the sun, the media only broadcast the finger, do science by yourself , instead of believing shit, aint that hard to do

>>18932209
>No, it can be
Well, I guess you could say that manipulated "evidence" isnt evidence. Semantics, really

>As long as it's reproducible, it's valid
What does it really mean if something is only theoretically reproducable. How am I supposed to check the validity of the measurements of some one of a kind experiment or space probe?

>Real problems or imaginary problems like area 51 or chemtrails?
Why bring up such bullshit? Where did I mention any tin-foil hattery? I am talking about, how even a very solid system isnt perfect.

>>18932169
There's the acid test right there for real science versus shady science. For example, most pharmaceutical studies are shady because of the intellectual property laws. Then add a whole second layer of shadiness on top of that for psychological studies that are fundamentally not quantifiable - and think about how hundreds of millions of people are on psychoactive "medications"

Then there's environmental studies that are based on data collected by devices built with the intention of supporting existing hypotheses and logistically untestable by skeptics. This is an obvious confirmation bias plus an argument from authority. The government shells out the grants to the scientists getting the results that further the agenda and bury the small studies raising doubt.

Most of the "science" that people like to throw in your face to justify the life choices they make or allow to be made for them fall squarely into these types of categories.