Critical Thinking

Skepticism and Science...

Published modern science is largely uninteresting, debunked, and all of the important information is swept under the rug by "experts" who fear for their positions, and fear the ridicule of their peers. They don't even believe the filtered nonsense which trickles down, completely altered, to the public. This is why we have classifications such as: crypto-this-or-that, pseudo-this-or-that, para-this-or-that. And because science is created by us therefore it cannot explain everything, it is a faulty system just as its inventors err. True, science is a powerful tool with untold benefits, but should be considered in tandem with common sense, as well as those things which we try to convince ourselves that we didn't see at the cost of our sanity. Explain to me, in terms of science, the essence of life itself, do we have a formula for that? Much less the millions of anomalous occurrences which elude the various sciences daily. Skepticism can protect us and deprive us all in one sitting...

Remember, mathematically all things are possible...:bugeye:
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by ripleofdeath
...
so if you did do a multi spectrim analysis would it include things like
Electro Magnetic fields
All percievable light frequencies
Sound
Gas and or particil in suspension/(air)
...
Click to expand...

I believe that Multispectral and Hyperspectral analysis are confined to the electromagnetic domain, specifically the analysis of electromagnetic signals, so analysis of sound and gas and/or partical suspensions in air would not fall within their definition.

BTW, I have heard of some groups doing analysis on the electromagnetic signatures of the human body, I will have to see if I can remember where and find the links. One of Tom Clancy's newer books described a device that was able to detect the electromagnetic signature of a human heartbeat at a significant distance and was used to track terrorists. Most of Clancy's stuff is soundly based in existing research or tactical/strategic capability so I would not find it hard to believe that the technology exists today.
 
<<...What is described in modern science is largely uninteresting, debunked,...>>

You mean, facts without subjective embellishments?

<<...and all of the important information is washed under the board by "experts"...>>

Ah, those subjective embellishments again.

<<...who fear for their positions, and fear the ridicule of their peers...>>

Peer review is an important part of the process. It has the intended purpose of keeping silly ideas and silly thinking from mucking up the effort. Real scientists don't fear peer review, they understand its absolute necessity.

<<...They don't even believe the filtered nonsense which trickles down, completely altered, to the public...>>

Important information and context are always lost to the process of gross over-simplification, sometimes leading to popularized nonsense masquerading as scientific revelation.

<<...This is why we have classifications such as: crypto-this-or-that, pseudo-this-or-that, para-this-or-that,...>>

Labels exist to allow users of language to share ideas and compare notes.

<<...science is created by us and therefore cannot explain everything, it is a faulty system just as its inventors err...>>

Err, so perhaps we can also suspect your analysis of science relying on man-made logic also is faulty. :p

<<...science is a powerful tool with untold benefits, but should be considered in tandem with common sense,...>>

Common sense is a term with an incredibly broad range of possible interpretations, even to include subjective reasonings. There's nothing wrong with prefering one scienctific theory over another, until one imagines their preferences are interchangeable with empirical evidence. For instance, what possible role in Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is there for 'common sense'? To make people more comfortable with the ideas?

<<...as well as those thing which we try to convince ourselves that we didn't see at the cost of our sanity.

If suspension of disbelief was such an impossible cognitive task for the masses the movie industry would have been bankrupted ages ago, and there wouldn't be a gaunlet of tabloids one has to run to get to the supermarrket check-out stand.

<<...Explain to me, in terms of science, the essence of life itself,..>>

To exist, to age to a/sexual maturity, to reproduce/to pass on one's genetic code to one's offspring.

<<...Much less the millions of anomalous occurances which elude the various sciences daily...>>

Perhaps they are best recognized by anomolous thinking.

<<...Wake up...>>

And life is but a dream.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Mr. G
<<...What is described in modern science is
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your points, but I think that what Yogamojo meant by the following quote:


Originally posted by Yogamojo
Explain to me, in terms of science, the essence of life itself
Click to expand...

was more in a rhetorical sense, as in "why should life exist here in the first place?" or "if amino acids & nucleotides are abundant in our solar system, would life arise naturally most of the time there? or "does life have a spiritual quality?". I'm having trouble with 'essence', how does science prove an intangible quality? Anyway, just a guess & more ????

:D
 
Certainly I understand that science is about quantification not qualification.

Yogamojo asked if there is a quantifiable (scientific) essence of life, so I provided one.

Thus is life's essense not just a matter of subjective qualifiers.

Philosophy is not the Whole of understanding, it is merely a part. The easier part, at that. That's why its the most popular part.
 
<<...Explain to me, in terms of science, the essence of life itself,..>>

To exist, to age to a/sexual maturity, to reproduce/to pass on one's genetic code to one's offspring.
Click to expand...

So if the essence of life itself is to reach sexual maturity and then to reproduce or pass on one's genetic code, what the fuck is the deal with gay people?
Gay people cant reproduce together, which would mean they go directly against what is the essence of life in your terms.
It might be the case that there is a rare "gay gene" floatin about the planet, i seriously doubt that but there are scientists trying to prove that very fact right now.
Even if there is a "gay gene" then what is the deal with people who dont want children, if its there essence to want children why do people sometime not bother?
As you've tryed to explain life there it seem's you have missed the point somewhat, i cant tell you what life is about in truth i wouldent try as a human being i dont get to look at the big picture, none of us do.
 
A friend of mine had an answer for the "gay" science. He said, nature always tries to balance the number count in a specific specis through predator, flood, fire and other means so that there is always a diversity. In case of humans, there may be too many people. Some groups pump out 6 to 50 kids in a family. So, to counter that, may be nature creates this "Gay" virus....you get the point....

I laughed...then again...who knows...nature always wins...
 
<<...pass on one's genetic code, what the fuck is the deal with gay people?..>>

An inconsequential genetic perturbation, at best.
 
I'm just going to mention that when the Ancient Greek Civilization teetered before it's climatic fall, there was a trend of men turning Gay. I would guess much the same as the Ancient Roman empire.

Perhaps when such states occur within a Civilized realm it's a signal that there is a climatic change about to occur to what we know as civilization.
 
I seem to recall that chimpanzees and certain other animals exhibit occasional male-on-male sexual behaviors, too.

That homosexual behavior may appear coincident with the downfall of civilizations may be because such behavior has been present throughout much of human history, even during the rise of civilizations.
 
Abnormal behaviour has been present in humans for thousands of years. Perhaps that is how the evolution occurs. But the percentages are very very low. I bet that the percentage of homosexuality in Japanese men is miniscule compared to American men. What causes for a particular trait to increase 10 or 100 fold, I do not know. Also at what point any abnormal trait becomes normal...??
 
<<...Abnormal behaviour has been present in humans for thousands of years...>>

So how long does a behavior have to persist to be considered normal?
 
Originally posted by Mr. G
So how long does a behavior have to persist to be considered normal?
Click to expand...

It is not "how long" that counts, it is how statistically significant. At least that is what my "Abnormal Psychology" text book taught us many moons ago...
 
?A Formulaic Description of Our Lifeforce...?

Originally posted by Mr. G
Yogamojo asked if there is a quantifiable (scientific) essence of life, so I provided one.
Click to expand...
Really what I was requesting in my last post on this thread was a name for the force which animates all living things or a formula by which to describe it. Up until now I have not met one, nor can I venture the mathematical language required to describe this myself. ¿Is there something like this:

xk+1 = (xk + y / (xk)n-1) / 2*

...rather than a verbal sumnation?

Indeed, many of us are aware that the firing of dendrites requires minute electrical signals across chemical bridges, but this does not explain such things as consciousness, self-awareness, or life and death. These are age-old philosophical issues, but they also present science with an extremely difficult problem wherein the experimentors and the scrutinizers are all subjects for observation...:bugeye:

Also Benji & Mr. G were discussing aberrant or "abnormal" behavior in humans. This too is an old issue, because from a certain viewpoint anything that happens is natural just because of the fact that it happened...

Originally posted by Mr. G
So how long does a behavior have to persist to be considered normal?
Click to expand...

I must agree, Mr. G. ¿If a behavior has existed in nature for thousands of years then what makes it unnatural? Who gets to decide?


*This formula is meant to be a visual example for the preceding text. See the attachment for an explanation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top