Science Is Non-Sense

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sy Borg »

Some people worry that science is becoming too abstract and that people are mistaking the map for the territory, so to speak, and that strikes me as Evolution's angle. I think it's worth taking the warning on board but, once appreciated, it's not necessarily something to overly dwell on, just to keep at the back of one's mind, like any mental discipline, eg. questioning our own beliefs.

The "map" and "territory" - reality and theory - are hard to parse when you drill down to atomic physics and QM, because they are so far from our experiential range. Black holes and stars fall into a similar category, lying at boundaries of reality very far from where we live in "middle (sized) world", as Dawkins called it.
NukeBan
Posts: 144
Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by NukeBan »

Greta wrote: December 10th, 2020, 6:05 amScience appears to be part of the march of evolution, and change does not tend to suit those being superseded.
The problem is that knowledge development feeds back on itself, leading to an ever accelerating rate of change. This process creates winners and losers, but even the winners can not be content because there is little stable that they can count on. For ever person who loses their job to automation or globalization etc there are 20 who worry that they will be next.

Thus, confusion, uncertainty and fear increasingly infects the population, leading to dangerous irrational acts such as the election of hyper confident con men who promise to "make America great again", in other words, take us back to some previous time when we felt we were in control of our fates.

Science is very sensible, in that it is a highly rational process which reliably produces the product it promises, new knowledge. What's irrational is our relationship with science. We typically assume that we can successfully manage any amount of power and any rate of change which are generated by science.

This irrational assumption is defeated by the simplest common sense logic. We don't give our ten year old child the keys to the car out of the rational premise that they don't have the ability to successfully manage that level of power. Eight years later when the child turns 18 we irrationally assume that adults can handle any amount of power delivered at any rate.

Greta says there's nothing we can do about this do to competition etc. That may be true, and if it is, we should start the process of kissing modern civilization goodbye. The technology to make this happen within just a few minutes already exists and is ready to go at the push of a button by a single person.

I agree there's probably nothing that can done within the current group consensus. But one of the upsides of radical change is that the group consensus can radically change too. Imagine you wake up tomorrow morning to read of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, with 100 million dead in a single day. Such Biblical scale events are surely coming, and will create a new group consensus where new premises can become possible.

A key problem is that while we understand all of this intellectually, we don't understand it emotionally, which is where we really live as human beings. Once this subject becomes personal and real to us, new possibilities will present themselves.

Many great civilizations have risen and then fallen. Our civilization will inevitably fall too sooner or later. What comes after that is probably beyond our imaginations.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sy Borg »

Well said, NukeBan. However, when you say, "Greta says there's nothing we can do about this do to competition etc. That may be true, and if it is, we should start the process of kissing modern civilization goodbye", my first thought is "Who is we?".

If you mean "we" as the common person, life is clearly moving towards mass unemployment with UBIs allowing for great control over large numbers of people. The prognosis for us little people is not fantastic, but I see only moderate obstacles for the very richest of us.

Society today is like a huge penguin huddle against ever more bitter temperatures. As time passes, those on the edge of the huddle perish, leaving the next layer exposed. To follow this analogy, by the time huddle reduces too much, the dominants in the middle will have invented robot penguins with inbuilt heater units and fresh fish dispensers ...
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta wrote:Some people worry that science is becoming too abstract and that people are mistaking the map for the territory, so to speak...
I think a lot (but not all) of the complaints that the map is treated like the territory, or, to put it another way, that abstracts are reified, stem simply from a misunderstanding of how those abstracts are being used. It happens frequently when non-specialists dive into specialist fields and try to work out what those specialists are talking about without looking at how they reached the current point in their conversation. It also happens when specialists, who are experts in their fields but necessarily in communication with those outside it, try to explain their field to a non-specialist audience.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Steve3007 »

Typo: I missed out the word "not" in the above.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: December 17th, 2020, 5:53 am
Greta wrote:Some people worry that science is becoming too abstract and that people are mistaking the map for the territory, so to speak...
I think a lot (but not all) of the complaints that the map is treated like the territory, or, to put it another way, that abstracts are reified, stem simply from a misunderstanding of how those abstracts are being used. It happens frequently when non-specialists dive into specialist fields and try to work out what those specialists are talking about without looking at how they reached the current point in their conversation. It also happens when specialists, who are experts in their fields but necessarily in communication with those outside it, try to explain their field to a non-specialist audience.
Sure, many of the issues are less in science than science education. IMO science's greatest logical sin has been overly strict silos. The issue is being addressed but there's still some latency to overcome.

But there's also the issue that humans can only abstractly comprehend the scale of quanta, stars and black holes, let alone galaxies and galactic clusters. Even the Earth is mostly only understood by us in the abstract.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by evolution »

Greta wrote: December 15th, 2020, 6:04 pm Evolution, OVERUSING CAPS LOCK achieves the opposite effect to what you intend.
What is 'it', which 'you', "greta", are ASSUMING, PRESUMING, or ENVISIONING that I intend?

Would you be at all surprised if YOUR GUESS was COMPLETELY WRONG?

By the way, 'overuse' is a completely RELATIVE word.
Greta wrote: December 15th, 2020, 6:04 pm You wish to emphasise those words but the overall effect is to reduce the readability of your entire text - ultimately REDUCING, rather than AIDING focus.
OR, JUST MAYBE this is EXACTLY, or CLOSELY, what I HAVE ACTUALLY INTENDED, for the human beings reading this, IN THE DAYS IN WHICH THIS IS BEING WRITTEN.

Imagine, for a second, that what I have actually intended was to show an intended audience, through a case study, of just how the Mind and the brain actually work. But, the intended audience were NEVER actually the ones who first read and/or replied to my writings but were actually the ones looking back at and reading the reactions, which my words brought about, from the ones, in the days of when this was being written?

Imagine if the test subjects, for this case study, were actually the unsuspecting audience who were reading my writings and replying back to 'me'. See, because the brain can be so easily fooled and tricked, some even believe that they cannot actually keep focusing on reading my words just because some letters are capitalized.

What will be SEEN, however, is that when these words are READ from a Truly OPEN perspective, then FOCUSING was and IS extremely simple AND easy. Even understanding the Truth intention AND meaning can be and will be very simple AND easy. One just needs to learn how the Mind and the brain actually work, first, and then ALL can and will be REVEALED.
Greta wrote: December 15th, 2020, 6:04 pm Readability studies show that lowercase is easier to read than capital letters because we subconsciously follow the shapes of words, and that is lost with the uniform heights of CAPS.
Focusing studies show that, from the Mind, focusing is NOT lost AT ALL. However, belief studies show that whenever one believes some 'thing' is true, then there is absolutely NOTHING that can override this and show that brain otherwise.

Look, from thee, Truly OPEN, Mind, what I have been actually saying, actually meaning, and actually intending, can be CLEARLY SEEN in, and from, thee actual words, which I have used, so far. However, and LISTEN, from the brain, people will ONLY EVER SEE what 'it' is that they want to see, and HEAR.

So, if 'you' are finding it just to hard to focus on words, just because SOME letters are capitalized, then so be it. But is this BECAUSE capitalized letters are ACTUALLY just to hard for you to keep focusing on, or, BECAUSE you have just read/heard some study, which apparently showed this to be?

Do 'you', "greta", BELIEVE this IS TRUE?

By the way,
What were ALL of the parameters of that "study"?
What were ALL of the variables of that "study"?
Who were ALL of the 'test subjects' of that "study"? And,
How long was this "study" carried out for?
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by evolution »

Steve3007 wrote: December 17th, 2020, 5:53 am
Greta wrote:Some people worry that science is becoming too abstract and that people are mistaking the map for the territory, so to speak...
I think a lot (but not all) of the complaints that the map is treated like the territory, or, to put it another way, that abstracts are reified, stem simply from a misunderstanding of how those abstracts are being used. It happens frequently when non-specialists dive into specialist fields and try to work out what those specialists are talking about without looking at how they reached the current point in their conversation.
But ASSUMING GUESSING, or just' theorizing', is NOT a specialized field. Just about ABSOLUTELY ANY one can do this.

Also, IF ANY one wants to Truly LOOK AT what the, so called, "specialists" have 'used' in order to 'reach their current point in their conversation', then PLEASE let me KNOW. Then we can Truly DELVE INTO THIS.

For example, let us LOOK AT and DISCUSS what the, so called, "specialists" 'used' to reach the conclusion that the faster one travels the slower 'time' IS. And, let us LOOK AT and DISCUSS what the, so called, "specialists" have 'used' to reach the conclusion that the Universe BEGAN with a "big bang" and IS expanding.

IF ANY one of 'you' WANTS to LOOK AT how "they" reached these current points, "in THEIR conversations", then this would be GREAT FUN and a GREAT WAY to REVEAL what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, and to REVEAL WHY 'you', human beings, have been MISSING THE OBVIOUS for so long now.
Steve3007 wrote: December 17th, 2020, 5:53 am It also happens when specialists, who are experts in their fields but necessarily in communication with those outside it, try to explain their field to a non-specialist audience.
This sounds like an excuse for WHY what these, so called, "experts in their fields" are NOT YET ABLE to reconcile their OWN contradictions AND differences. That is; Blame those who cannot communicate, properly and correctly, for what the "others" have FAILED to explain previously.

IF NO one of ANY "field" can NOT explain things from that field, to ANY one, supposedly, "outside of that field", then there is NO use in 'trying to' blame this occurrence on the "experts" who are not necessarily experts in communication.

Are you REALLY 'trying to' tell us ALL here that the VERY REASON WHY the, so called, "cosmological experts", for example, have NOT YET EXPLAINED "their field" to the, so called, "non-specialist audience", in the days of when this is being written, is because NONE OF THEM are 'not necessarily experts in communication'?

Is ANY one an EXPERT 'in communication'?

Also, could it be just possible that IF the, so called, "experts" do NOT know how to explain 'it' [their field], then they, themselves, just do NOT understand 'it' well enough?

Or, is the SOLE and ONLY reason WHY these human beings can NOT explain their field to OTHERS just because the ones that 'try to' are just not necessarily experts in the field of communication?

Has it EVER occurred to 'you' that they could just be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG?

I suggest that if these, so called, "experts" just LOOKED AT and RELEASED the results and measurements ONLY, without making the absurd and ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS/THEORIES, which they ALL do make, then thee ACTUAL Truth would have been DISCOVERED and UNCOVERED a long time ago.

The results and measurements of redshift and the halefe-keating experiments are GREAT EXAMPLES of this.

IF, and WHEN, we LOOK AT and DISCUSS these results AND measurements WITHOUT ANY presumptions NOR assumptions AND guesses being made as to what they ACTUALLY MEAN and INFER, then, IT IS POSSIBLE to SEE, UNCOVER, LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, ONCE and for ALL.

But do NOT take my word for this. This can ONLY be PROVEN True, through trail AND experiments. So, if this is NEVER tried, then this could NEVER be PROVEN to be True. Which would be a 'self-fulfilling' prophecy for those who BELIEVE that this could NOT BE POSSIBLE.

Part of the reason WHY 'science' is NON-SENSE is because, so called, "experts" or "scientists", in the field of 'science' do NOT actually LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS, but rather LOOK AT and DISCUSS what COULD BE. Which maybe counter intuitive or contrary to popular belief, but if ANY one Truly wants to FIND thee Truth, then they FIRST have to start LOOKING AT 'It' and DISCUSSING 'It'.

For those who are Truly interested start by questioning, Do, or would, "scientists" LOOK AT and BOTHER with thee Truth of things?

If thee Truth is ALREADY KNOWN, then what is there, or would be, to 'study', 'learn about', and/or 'discover'?

LOOKING AT what COULD BE is what, so called, "scientists" do, and, very unfortunately, this is WHY "they" now, in the days of when this is being written, think AND see things the way they do.

If 'science', itself, was the systemic study of the physical 'world' through observation and experiment SOLELY, then this would be IDEAL. However, in the days of when this is being written, some human beings study, systemically, the physical 'world' through observation, experiment, AND assumptions, guesses, and theories.

In the days of when this is being written, so called, "experts" or "scientists" do NOT necessarily focus on and study just 'that' what ACTUALLY IS True, they tend to focus far more on and study 'that' what COULD or MAY BE true, or false.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sy Borg »

One either takes advice from those with more experience or one doesn't.

Noted.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta wrote:Sure, many of the issues are less in science than science education. IMO science's greatest logical sin has been overly strict silos. The issue is being addressed but there's still some latency to overcome.
Yes, although that's partly an issue with the accumulation of knowledge generally. The more the human race accumulates knowledge the greater the need for specialization into narrower and narrower fields and therefore the greater the tendency for silos to develop. The days of the polymath who made genuinely cutting edge discoveries in diverse fields are gone.
But there's also the issue that humans can only abstractly comprehend the scale of quanta, stars and black holes, let alone galaxies and galactic clusters. Even the Earth is mostly only understood by us in the abstract.
I'd have to be able to work out better what we're talking about here when we talk about "abstractly understanding" something. Do you mean understanding without direct observation? If so, we'd then have to consider what we mean by "direct observation"! :-)
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: December 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
But there's also the issue that humans can only abstractly comprehend the scale of quanta, stars and black holes, let alone galaxies and galactic clusters. Even the Earth is mostly only understood by us in the abstract.
I'd have to be able to work out better what we're talking about here when we talk about "abstractly understanding" something. Do you mean understanding without direct observation? If so, we'd then have to consider what we mean by "direct observation"! :-)
What in our usual experience of stars would give us a realistic impression of their reality - their scale, complexity or intensity?

We call them "balls of gas", which is like referring to humans and other animals as "specks of meat". But we don't refer to the latter in that way because we have direct experience with them. We instinctively know how much more living beings are than just their bodies' basic and unsystematised components. Nothing in our language is capable of even remotely describing stars' scale and intensity.

Only math allows even an iota of comprehension, but it's an abstract kind of understanding that still cannot describe the visceral reality of objects that are so far beyond "awesome". View from mountains are awesome. The view of Earth from the IIS is apparently so awesome it is life-changing for astronauts. But the Sun and other stars are in an entirely different league. Trouble is, to be at a distance where comprehension is possible would be fatal in too many ways to mention. It would be akin to getting inside a meat grinder to see what it's like to be ground to bits. Even the Parker solar probe will come, at its closest, within about 7 million kms of the Sun.

Now, about black holes ...
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by evolution »

Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 7:55 pm
Steve3007 wrote: December 18th, 2020, 5:52 am
I'd have to be able to work out better what we're talking about here when we talk about "abstractly understanding" something. Do you mean understanding without direct observation? If so, we'd then have to consider what we mean by "direct observation"! :-)
What in our usual experience of stars would give us a realistic impression of their reality - their scale, complexity or intensity?

We call them "balls of gas", which is like referring to humans and other animals as "specks of meat". But we don't refer to the latter in that way because we have direct experience with them. We instinctively know how much more living beings are than just their bodies' basic and unsystematised components. Nothing in our language is capable of even remotely describing stars' scale and intensity.
LOL

There is LOTS in your language, which is capable of remotely describing star's scale AND intensity.

As ALREADY evidence AND proven.
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 7:55 pm Only math allows even an iota of comprehension, but it's an abstract kind of understanding that still cannot describe the visceral reality of objects that are so far beyond "awesome".
WHY, to 'you', are 'stars', supposedly, "so far beyond awesome", but 'you', animal humans, are not?
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 7:55 pm View from mountains are awesome. The view of Earth from the IIS is apparently so awesome it is life-changing for astronauts.
LOL IF ONLY 'you' KNEW the absurdness of this.
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 7:55 pm But the Sun and other stars are in an entirely different league.
REMEMBER, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, this means, that includes, that this CLAIM here is from YOUR perspective, only.

To me, ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' is, LITERALLY, in the EXACT SAME 'league'.
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 7:55 pm Trouble is, to be at a distance where comprehension is possible would be fatal in too many ways to mention. It would be akin to getting inside a meat grinder to see what it's like to be ground to bits.
Above you made the CLAIM that " 'we' have DIRECT experience with OTHER animals ", and when this is combined with what you say and claim here, then how do you EXPLAIN that 'we', human beings, have ALREADY "gotten INSIDE other animals" to "instinctively KNOW them"?
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 7:55 pm Even the Parker solar probe will come, at its closest, within about 7 million kms of the Sun.

Now, about black holes ...
And how CLOSE have you ACTUALLY GOTTEN to being within OTHER animals, without just anthropomorphizing?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sy Borg »

"Evolution", It is hardly unknown on philosophy forums that the subjective nature of life means separation from other things, precluding the same (weak) understanding with which we comprehend our own experiences. I was not talking about solipsism, but our relationships with other things. You appear to have misread and misunderstood.

So, sure, our understanding of animals is limited. However, they are rather like us - and it is not ANTHROPOMORPHSING to say that, as you mistakenly claimed. Animals - humans and otherwise - are small biological entities rather than gargantuan stellar entities.

If you think there is no difference between animals and stars then you have provided a clear example of how only understanding things in abstract leads to bizarre, unfounded views.
User avatar
dirtrockground
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: December 18th, 2020, 10:47 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by dirtrockground »

impermanence wrote: December 7th, 2020, 11:28 pm Time is obviously an abstraction that has no basis what-so-ever in Reality [even in small "r"]. The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

Mathematics [the language of science] is problematic for a host of reasons, paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than "1," but just as troubling is the fact that math breaks down at its extremes.

If Time and Math do not hold-up, how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion? After all, at least religion points in the right direction.
Hey there, let's divide this into three parts, (1) the time problem, (2) the math problem, and (3) science as a tool vs. science as a worldview.

1. The Time Problem

Let's start with Reality. When considering time, we have to be very clear about what how we understand Reality as well as our relationship to it. I want to make sure I'm considering it in a way that you would deem acceptable. It seems the definition of Reality you are using here as related to time is that everything that is "real" exists in what is normally described as the "eternal Now." What I understand you to mean by time being an abstraction is that our concepts of past and future are not real. They are intellectual constructs. This is acceptable, but by using this understanding to reject science is a misunderstanding of what science is and why we do it.

Let's use the term "Dynamic reality" to describe your eternal Now, and the term "Static reality" to accommodate our abstractions of past and future. Science is essentially a tool used to express our understanding of static reality, using dynamic reality as a test of its validity. Experience tells us that things happen in a serial order according to our subjective experience. While it is possible according to relativity that people may "experience things in a different order" so to speak, each individual generally experiences things in a serial order where one thing happens after another, and abstracting from that experience gives us the idea of the past and the future. These abstractions allow us to speak of a static reality, a reality which behaves in a certain way at all times. By comparing our understanding with replicative experiments, we can constantly put our understanding to the test of dynamic reality, the experimental data that nature provides allowing us to confirm or reject the validity of our scientific constructs.

As for your other two statements on this problem, I'm going to need some more explanation from you before I can dive into them. I do not understand them. I have an idea about what you mean, but not enough information to respectably speak to the points.

2. The Math Problem

I take issue with most of the assertions that you have made in this statement.

* "Mathematics [the language of science]..." - Mathematics is not the language of science. It is a tool in the scientist's toolkit. Mathematics is a language unto itself.

* "paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than '1,'..." - Again, I will need more information from you before I am comfortable digging into this statement. I suspect that perhaps this problem could be resolved if the suggested distinction between dynamic and static reality above were accepted.

* "math breaks down at its extremes." - Everything breaks down at its extremes. No system performs well in edge cases. That is why they are extreme, and why they are subject of study by many people far more intelligent and capable than myself.

3. Science as a tool vs. science as a worldview.

"how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion?"

You've hit an important issue with this statement. There are many people who do choose to put the majority of their faith in science. I would agree that this is not the right move, but disagree with the notion that if science is not a satisfactory worldview, then it is not a satisfactory tool. The craftsman, in his service to God, may construct an impeccable church, the finest anyone has ever seen. He did not construct this church by centering his worldview around the church. The craftsman set his sights on God, and in the process, a church of incomparable quality was constructed. Analogously, the scientist, in his service to Truth and Reason, may construct an impeccable theory, the finest anyone has ever seen. He did not construct the theory by centering his worldview around the theory. The scientist set his sights on Truth and Reason, and in the process, a theory of incomparable quality was constructed. Still, Notre Dame burns and scientific theories are falsified.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by evolution »

Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 10:23 pm "Evolution", It is hardly unknown on philosophy forums that the subjective nature of life means separation from other things, precluding the same (weak) understanding with which we comprehend our own experiences.
Is it hardly KNOWN, on philosophy forums, that the objective nature of Life, Itself, means there is NO actual separation? And that "other things", is just a misconceived perception, which is derived from the use of different words, with different definitions?
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 10:23 pm I was not talking about solipsism, but our relationships with other things.
I ALSO was not talking about solipsism.
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 10:23 pm You appear to have misread and misunderstood.
What, EXACTLY, made this 'appear', to you?

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is I just expressed some things, from my point of view, AND, just asked you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 10:23 pm So, sure, our understanding of animals is limited.
Why now include the word 'our', when I was asking 'you' specifically?

Also, this is just an attempt of 'distraction' from what I was pointing out and the actual question that I asked 'you'.
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 10:23 pm However, they are rather like us - and it is not ANTHROPOMORPHSING to say that, as you mistakenly claimed.
What does the word 'anthropomorphising', actually, mean, to you?

Also, I NEVER made such an outrageous, absurd, and ridiculous claim as the one you are making here now.
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 10:23 pm Animals - humans and otherwise - are small biological entities rather than gargantuan stellar entities.
If you say so. But this STILL NEVER answers the actual question that I posed to you.
Greta wrote: December 18th, 2020, 7:55 pm If you think there is no difference between animals and stars then you have provided a clear example of how only understanding things in abstract leads to bizarre, unfounded views.
I do NOT think there is no difference between animals and stars. Therefore, the rest of what you wrote here is just moot.

REMEMBER, 'I' am just trying to get 'you' to CLARIFY YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of things, from what you have said CLEARLY ABOVE. To some, YOUR VIEWS are very bizarre, and unfounded, which could be PROVEN WRONG by you CLARIFYING HOW you got YOUR VIEWS, WHY you have THOSE VIEWS, and WHERE you got THOSE VIEWS from, EXACTLY.

But if you prefer not to do this, then so be it.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021