Scientism

Jeanie · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

So, you are looking at it through the lense of human perception which is far more flawed than any scientific perspective.

Um.....sorry..........just skimming through and noticed this one and couldn't let it pass.

Isn't scientific perspective and science just humans doing? AND therefore would be through the "lense of human perception"? AND also just as open to flaws and interpretation? Yes scientists study a great deal to understand and further advance the theories on the science they are studying but they also have flaws and make mistakes just like the rest of us. THEY are only HUMAN after all.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The term psychotic doesn't have negative connotations, it's just one more piece of evidence of how your perception is flawed. Read what a psychotic experience is. Now, many mental health professionals will allow you to believe the psychotic experience was real for you to heal.

But, we are discussing what is real, not what is in your head.

My dispute is with the illness-slant science, yourself and others are giving it. Again: I have no problem with the term psychosis in of itself. The idea that losing touch with reality is a negative thing, or not real, or illness is where I draw the boundary.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

My dispute is with the illness-slant science, yourself and others are giving it. Again: I have no problem with the term psychosis in of itself. The idea that losing touch with reality is a negative thing, or not real, or illness is where I draw the boundary.

I'm saying in your case it was probably a good thing. But it's no basis for a belief in reality. You preach on here constantly about how science is bullshit because people don't use their whole brain. I call bullshit, brain scans show the whole brain being in use. I mean, I think you are just flat out wrong.

angelica · March 2007

angelica wrote:

My dispute is with the illness-slant science, yourself and others are giving it. Again: I have no problem with the term psychosis in of itself. The idea that losing touch with reality is a negative thing, or not real, or illness is where I draw the boundary.

There are two ways psychosis is "bad" in terms of experience:

1) when a person has all kinds of ingrained cultural ideas and psychological conflicts that confuse the situation and create all kinds of fallout within the persons worldview. This is the typical negative stuff associated with psychosis.

2)When people around the person having the experience encourage them to frame the experience in a way that is unhealthy, or that does not empower the person, such as using illness, "your'e flawed" or "there is something wrong with you" terminology'; negative thinking..ie: you can't recover, it's who you are; criticism, and other ignorant and power-imbalanced methods that contribute to the occurence of mental health issues in our society.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm saying in your case it was probably a good thing. But it's no basis for a belief in reality. You preach on here constantly about how science is bullshit because people don't use their whole brain. I call bullshit, brain scans show the whole brain being in use. I mean, I think you are just flat out wrong.

If you are going to twist what I say, then it is going to look like a distorted view to you.

Rats of Multa · March 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Um.....sorry..........just skimming through and noticed this one and couldn't let it pass.

Isn't scientific perspective and science just humans doing? AND therefore would be through the "lense of human perception"? AND also just as open to flaws and interpretation? Yes scientists study a great deal to understand and further advance the theories on the science they are studying but they also have flaws and make mistakes just like the rest of us. THEY are only HUMAN after all.

great point Jeanie.

science is, in essence, humanity's best attempt [yet...] at purifying and validating the phenomenon of perception and all of the effects [from the data] that perceiving creates.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

If you are going to twist what I say, then it is going to look like a distorted view to you.

See, this is what you do, you claim there is more than meets the eye. Then you fall back into this, well there isn't. Everything is everyting and nothing at the same time. Two spheres transcend each other, rely on each other and independent and exist within the whole of holons and mind and blah blah blah. None of it makes any sense. All you do is distort everything with a theory that you don't seem to understand yourself. It contradicts it's self, it offers nothing.

Every thread has something to do with your theory of everything that means nothing, does nothing, consists of nothing and is nothing. You are trying to prove science as a study of reality is flawed because it doesn't account for your delusions. It's just pathetic.

So, how is this delusion good for you? You push the idea on people, they believe it and now they are delusional. Sounds a lot like Christianity to me. You have a faith in something you cannot prove, there is no evidence for it, you promise greater enlightenment and control over life. Write yourself a book, claim it was written by Abdul Ahzarif and you can get people to commit suicide at the next meteor shower.

Ahnimus · March 2007

Rats of Multa wrote:

great point Jeanie.

science is, in essence, humanity's best attempt [yet...] at purifying and validating the phenomenon of perception and all of the effects [from the data] that perceiving creates.

Yea, well, science doesn't duke it out over something is red, pink or green. It actually measures the physical photons. Human percpetion is the grey area of disagreement. No, science goes beneath human percpetion to objective reality, that includes studying human percpetion and control mechanisms are used to eliminate any error in human perception during scientific discovery.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

See, this is what you do, you claim there is more than meets the eye. Then you fall back into this, well there isn't. Everything is everyting and nothing at the same time. Two spheres transcend each other, rely on each other and independent and exist within the whole of holons and mind and blah blah blah. None of it makes any sense. All you do is distort everything with a theory that you don't seem to understand yourself. It contradicts it's self, it offers nothing.

Every thread has something to do with your theory of everything that means nothing, does nothing, consists of nothing and is nothing. You are trying to prove science as a study of reality is flawed because it doesn't account for your delusions. It's just pathetic.

So, how is this delusion good for you? You push the idea on people, they believe it and now they are delusional. Sounds a lot like Christianity to me. You have a faith in something you cannot prove, there is no evidence for it, you promise greater enlightenment and control over life. Write yourself a book, claim it was written by Abdul Ahzarif and you can get people to commit suicide at the next meteor shower.

I'm sharing my view and my experiences. I don't push my view on anyone. It's an alternative one that I put out there. People choose for themselves.

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, well, science doesn't duke it out over something is red, pink or green. It actually measures the physical photons. Human percpetion is the grey area of disagreement. No, science goes beneath human percpetion to objective reality, that includes studying human percpetion and control mechanisms are used to eliminate any error in human perception during scientific discovery.

Yes, when you conveniently remove the human scientist doing the observing, as Jeanie pointed out. yes, then it seems objective, but in reality it isn't.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · March 2007

The bottom line is.......feel good all the time. Feeling bad sucks...

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

I'm sharing my view and my experiences. I don't push my view on anyone. It's an alternative one that I put out there. People choose for themselves.

Ok... it sure seems like you are insisting that you are enlightened, that you have more coherence in your brain than others. You insist your experiences were real. You ignore the fact that it may have been a psychotic episode and you become defensive when someone suggests it may have been. That is basically a religion.

onelongsong · March 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Um.....sorry..........just skimming through and noticed this one and couldn't let it pass.

Isn't scientific perspective and science just humans doing? AND therefore would be through the "lense of human perception"? AND also just as open to flaws and interpretation? Yes scientists study a great deal to understand and further advance the theories on the science they are studying but they also have flaws and make mistakes just like the rest of us. THEY are only HUMAN after all.

you're right. science is the conclusion of flawed humans. the birthchild of man himself. just as early science concluded that the sun revolved the earth; and the world was flat. this is the same science.
thanks jeanie

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Yes, when you conveniently remove the human scientist doing the observing, as Jeanie pointed out. yes, then it seems objective, but in reality it isn't.

That's what science as a whole does. It's only partially susceptible to human error and it gets weeded out. Like Dr. Emoto, he's full of shit, everyone knows that. He's been outed because he doesn't play by the rules. Anytime he can show others without applying his bias, then he will be given credit. Yet, you seem to believe that shit anyway. So your whole problem with science is so hipocritical.

Ahnimus · March 2007

onelongsong wrote:

you're right. science is the conclusion of flawed humans. the birthchild of man himself. just as early science concluded that the sun revolved the earth; and the world was flat. this is the same science.
thanks jeanie

That wasn't science dude, read your history, that was religion that made those claims. Science isn't that old, philosophy, yes, but not science.

You are blurring the lines to support your dogmatic view of reality.

Jeanie · March 2007

Rats of Multa wrote:

great point Jeanie.

science is, in essence, humanity's best attempt [yet...] at purifying and validating the phenomenon of perception and all of the effects [from the data] that perceiving creates.

Thanks rats! It just kinda leapt of the page at me!

I'm a firm "believer" in science but I recognize that it is all based on what we have known and what we know now and that it is all based purely on the perception.

Hey? Are you actually in Malta right now?

angelica · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok... it sure seems like you are insisting that you are enlightened, that you have more coherence in your brain than others. You insist your experiences were real. You ignore the fact that it may have been a psychotic episode and you become defensive when someone suggests it may have been. That is basically a religion.

What something "seems" like to you is about your perceptions.

I've told numerous people, including you, that I don't consider myself enlightened. I've admitted having psychotic experiences numerous times in this thread, alone, so your entire argument here is inaccurate. If you choose to weave together these innacuracies and then attribute them to me and make this about religious fervour, of course you are free to do so. I would posit, however, that it was actually more about your own unconscious issues than my own.

Ahnimus · March 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Thanks rats! It just kinda leapt of the page at me!

I'm a firm "believer" in science but I recognize that it is all based on what we have known and what we know now and that it is all based purely on the perception.

Hey? Are you actually in Malta right now?

It's not based purely on perception. That is complete rubbish.

onelongsong · March 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok... it sure seems like you are insisting that you are enlightened, that you have more coherence in your brain than others. You insist your experiences were real. You ignore the fact that it may have been a psychotic episode and you become defensive when someone suggests it may have been. That is basically a religion.

i didn't get that at all. i think she expressed an open mind to things unknown or not yet explainable. i can have the same experiences she does. and there's someone else here that can attest to that [if she cares to step forward]. people can link their minds too. the best example is twins; only because the study of people with altered brains is nil.

Ahnimus · March 2007

angelica wrote:

What something "seems" like to you is about your perceptions.

I've told numerous people, including you, that I don't consider myself enlightened. I've admitted having psychotic experiences numerous times in this thread, alone, so your entire argument here is inaccurate. If you choose to weave together these innacuracies and then attribute them to me and make this about religious fervour, of course you are free to do so. I would posit, however, that it was actually more about your own unconscious issues than my own.

Screw that. You just said that lucy whatever and myself are ignorant laymens, because we only look to science for answers and we don't have the superior consciousness you do. Stop flip-flopping and either stand-up for what you believe in or sit down.

Scientism

Comments

Categories