Science is not a perfect institution

[Ophiolite]

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this, but I'll play along.

There were numerous names for science in the ancient world .... The Greeks had some kind of chemistry, a study of electricity, primitive atomic theory, and lenses. .

Yes. We know that today's science has evolved both in content and methodology from earlier versions of 'science'. We also recognise the considerable knowledge possessed by the ancients i.e. a lot more than the avergae punter thinks; a lot less than the new world mystic knows; and round about what the thoughtful historian, archaeologist and scientist, has figured out.

QUOTE=MetaKron]Remember the Pythagorean theory and Euclidean geometry? And it was not a non-technological people who built the pyramids all over the world..[/QUOTE]Considering that Pythagoras et al probably acquired mucg of their knowledge from Egypt that is not surprising. Please note that the technology involved in erecting large stone buildings is quite different from that involved in building helicopters, microwaves and computers.
I hope you are not suggesting differently.
QUOTE=MetaKron]I know that what we think of as technology is often irritating, but for all too long we have allowed the same kind of people to do us in with it who did it to people thousands of years ago. [/QUOTE]An what kind of people would those be? I suspect the onset of a paranoid agenda at this point.

As far as I know the original model of what we think of as heterosexuality started with the establishment of patriarchal society

Really. I always thought it started with the first eukaryote a few billion years earlier.

Can't stop the rocks from falling from the sky, can't clear the clouds that obscure the heavens and make the crops grow poorly, can't stop the ground from shaking, and can't stop the red liquid fire from crawling across the ground, and can't let go of it. So we start beating each other.

I think you may be telling us much more about yourself than about humanity in this passage.
Your final post does not merit a response. I had hoped you were going somewhere with this. Sadly I was wrong. Please don't start whining.

 

[MetaKron]

It's definitely a badge of honor when Ophiolite declares that a message "does not merit a response." Unfortunately, that won't stop him from responding. He knows it's true.

 

[Buddha1]

You have continuously failed to provide any evidence other than hearsay and idle speculation.

You have continued to ignore every evidence that I have given. A sincere debate is not only dependant on 'peer-reviewed' paper. You can also judge an evidence on the basis of its own strength. You have not even cared to dismiss my evidences as wrong. You are afraid to touch them, your tactics can be best described as 'red tapism' designed to avoid a discussion.

That you consider vigorous questioning of your hypothesis to be bigoted merely reveals how far you have to travel in your personal journey towards truth.

I found your posts sincere at one point of time. And I have learnt a great deal from your suggestions. I basically find the insistence on 'peer-reviewed' papers an avoidance of the issue because we as 'thinking' people are well capable of considering the strength of evidences on our own.

But you have even avoided considering my 'peer-reviewed' evidences' (Bagemihl!).

How can you say that my image of you as an insincere and bigoted debater is wrong? You want me to change my ways, but don't want to change yours --- why?.....because your views/ methodology have the 'sanction' of the establishment. Are you going to take away the power of those who are not selected-scientists to observe life and draw conclusions on their own, and going to not even consider their experiences/ views/ conclusions. Then I don't care much for science or scientists. Truth is not dependant on scientists for its verification -- just as it is not dependant on the sanction of organised religion ---not withstanding the power of your establishment.

The best things in life are free. And fortunately, the real truth can be experienced, analysed and verified by the common, ordinary man. As soon as he frees himself from the oppressive human institutions like science and religion. It is not for nothing that those who have spoken the real truth could do so only after leaving the human society with its fabricated institutions --- Buddha was one of them.

One of my friends has never gone to a formal school. His parents are highly intellectual and socially oriented people. They consciously took the decision not to send him and his brother to school because they wanted him to learn the 'real truth'. And schools and institutions take away your power to analyse and experience this world on their own --- based on their natural instincts. One just learns to parrot what others have said. And lies get more and more sanctioned when they are repeated generation after generation. And this young man is highly intellectual, has a vast library of books and knows a lot about history, science, religion, etc. than most educated people do. He has received several grants from governments and has been invited by Germany to deliver lectures at the tender age of 17 years (that was several years ago!).

If you sincerely want to seek the truth --- and are open to accepting or at least recognising something that goes against everything you may have learnt so far, you have to leave your establishment 'power'. Just like when you want to seek the real god, you have to abandon the church and its methodology. The scientific methodology, like red-tapism can be great when you want to muddle facts.

If you want to continue to believe in an oppressive ideology because you have spent your life thus far pursuing it, do remain obstinate.

That you consider vigorous questioning of your hypothesis to be bigoted merely reveals how far you have to travel in your personal journey towards truth.

Questioning, apart from being vigorous should also be sincere and with an open attitude. I was put off by you continuously ignoring the evidences that I gave --- including the 'peer-reviewed' evidence of Bruce Bagemihl. And at the same time you joined the band wagon of idle talkers like Satyr.

I'm more than willing to enter into a serious discussion --- but you have to agree to consider other evidences than those which are 'peer-reviewed' --- although you have the right to reject them but only after considering them and only if you can give logical reasons for doing so.

That is part of respecting the other person you are debating with. To respect his experiences, analysis and conclusions (it does not mean to agree with it, you can still prove it wrong! and you can still bring out his drawbacks). And unless there is mutual respect, no debate can be sincere. This is something science doesn't teach you.

We are not really discussing from inside a 'scientific institution' and we don't have to follow its rules strictly. What is important is that we stick to the spirit of 'science' (as claimed), not stick with the institution of science (and abandon the spirit).

 

[Buddha1]

The instant you throw the towel in
that instant you will be the Laughter and JOY (Kundalini) that can leave absolutely no doubt that far beyond your wildest dreams
you have always been Untouchable, Complete and Content.

Some call this "Untouchable, Complete and Content" Krishna and others Buddha and others Christ but it is I/YOU/ALL and only thoughts, the mind, can think that it thinks otherwise.-- UV-gap

It is interesting. Spirituality does seem to have the power to liberate us from science. Whether it will get a chance or not, I'm not sure. Spirituality has been much condemned by science --- and its effect are not as 'visible' (in a materialistic sense) as are of science.

The recent efforts of science to embrace spirituality seem to be just superficial. Everything just comes down to physical verification. Unless we adopt a more wholesome approach than just science I don't see much hope.

Also, one can get in touch with the Krishna/ Buddha/ Christ within but does that mean that we can leave our karma? When I'm personally englighened will I stop caring for what is happening in the material world? Will this make me stop my fight against the wrong that I see in the material world?

I think spirituality can offer an answer but it can not be the complete answer. There has to be an effort in the physical world too!

 

[Buddha1]

as for the war on [some] drugs. tis is fascism. this includes war against psychedelic inspiration, and this war goews way back. it is MIND-CONTROL, nd we need to very much explore about that too.

It's so extremely complex that it is probably beyond isolated people to comprehend in its entirety or put up an adequate resistance. You need an organised struggle from all the fronts that have been marginalised as 'alternative'.

 

[MetaKron]

Ophiolite is the one who dismisses as "no evidence" any evidence that he doesn't want to hear, so he feels perfectly comfortable accusing you of presenting no evidence after you've fed him an entire encyclopedia. Maybe it's going in the wrong end...

To me intelligence is a vital part of spirit and science exercises intelligence. There is the purity of the infantile state of spirit, which is all pretty much flat space and pretty little sparks and colors, but someone who has been adequately and joyfully corrupted by gross matter is someone who can really appreciate spirit.

 

[Buddha1]

There were numerous names for science in the ancient world that I know of, like teknos and majik.

It is equivalent to saying that there were numerous names for 'homosexual' in the ancient world (Catamite for instance!). The fact is these words referred to quite different things not what we understand by our modern terms 'science' or 'sexual orientation'.

What existed in the ancient world was the claimed spirit behind science --- logical analysis, but certainly not in its present isolated form. It was a part of a wholesome worldview and any thing/technology that humans invented or used was a balanced entity --- that existed wonderfully with the nature, and did not work against human nature. This balanced worldview did not see nature as something to be exploited in order to draw power to fulfill mankinds greed. Nature was respected, feared and even worshipped.

Science has isolated one part from that wholesome worldview --- the logical reasoning part and developed it into a powerful institution. While it has thrown off the rest as useless. And all the malaise of today's society are a product of this imbalanced/ unnatural thing that we have developed --- 'Science'.

Just like how the modern science takes a wonder herb from the past --- say 'Turmeric' that is known to fight things like 'cancer', tries to isolate the singlemost compound that they believe does the work, extract that compound (Curcumin in this case!) and convert it into a drug (Let's say Curcumycin).

The new drug may seem to do its work but may also have serious side effects which science has no direct way to evaluate --- side effects which the entire herb taken as a whole would not have had, because there were other compounds in it that balanced any harmful effects that curcumin may have had.

And nothing would be far from the truth to assert that Curcumycin has always existed and been used since the ancient times. Because what the ancients knew and used was turmeric as a whole thing.

Can you see the difference now?

"Science" comes from the latin word "scientia" or "knowledge" and Latin is a fairly ancient language,

Just because we use changed forms of ancient languages to denote our modern concepts does not give historical validity to our concepts. Homosexual too is derived from latin, but it does not make the concept any more historical than science.

The Greeks had some kind of chemistry, a study of electricity, primitive atomic theory, and lenses. Some of them back then had working electric batteries. It was relatively non-technological people who overran the Greeks and eventually the Romans. Remember the Pythagorean theory and Euclidean geometry? And it was not a non-technological people who built the pyramids all over the world.

Yes the physical aspects of nature has been studied before, but like I said, the concept, values and methodologies were different. It was a 'wholesome' concept.

To take another example male-female have sex in the wild too. But it will be wrong to call that heterosexuality or dating. Or to call animals gay, single, wedded, divorced or widower. These modern/ human terms have totally different connotations. These terms are products of our artificial, even unnatural social structuring.

 

[MetaKron]

Good point about the Curcurmycin. We lean too heavily on the "magic bullet" approach. It seems that it's the magic and not the effectiveness that matters. A lot of people who believe in magic say that it didn't work because the patient lacked faith, had the wrong kind of sex, or whatever. We've got magic tied in with science. It's just hidden so that we have to look at it from a different angle.

 

[Buddha1]

Good point about the Curcurmycin. We lean too heavily on the "magic bullet" approach. It seems that it's the magic and not the effectiveness that matters. A lot of people who believe in magic say that it didn't work because the patient lacked faith, had the wrong kind of sex, or whatever. We've got magic tied in with science. It's just hidden so that we have to look at it from a different angle.

Most of the things that the modern science gives us are 'immediate' and 'sensational', although they often have high hidden costs. Like Genep has hinted at.

 

[Buddha1]

Science has isolated one part from that wholesome worldview --- the logical reasoning part and developed it into a powerful institution. While it has thrown off the rest as useless. And all the malaise of today's society are a product of this imbalanced/ unnatural thing that we have developed --- 'Science'.

The wholesome/ complete worldview ensured that humans don't abuse their 'knowledge' to harm themselves, other species or mother earth.

It also ensured that men don't work against their or nature's long term interests (humans are not capable of foreseeing things beyond a certain point). It also ensured that they did not invent things which would have far reaching consequences --- because humans can't conceive or understand things after they reach a particular level of complexity.

Science --- whether as a concept or as an institution lacks both of these protections. It places immense power in the hands of humans who are incapable to look at the consequences of using this power beyond a particular time and level of complexity. Therefore even a sincere and well-meaning 'scientific' action may have serious (though not immediately or directly visible) negative consequences. And of course there can be no foolproof checks that the technology will not pass into wrong hands.

This harmful effect can be seen in everything that science has given us so far. There are daily reports of things that we have been using for quite sometime now --- which were developed by science after 'adequate' scientific researches (which naturally went through peer-review) --- of their having some previously unknown side-effects. There was a report last year that plastic bags and other items have extreme consequences for male babies.

 

[duendy]

It's so extremely complex that it is probably beyond isolated people to comprehend in its entirety or put up an adequate resistance. You need an organised struggle from all the fronts that have been marginalised as 'alternative'.

me))regarding mind-control........, i am seeing a pattern which inolves:
cults,
religions,
ideologies,
prohibition of consciousness altering vewgetation, and substances,
secret propaganda techniques used by elite groups (Edward Bernays, Illuminati
school,
college,
university,
peer pressure,
mental health establishment.

can you think of any more?

s it is to research all of these institution, and see what they are up to.

what does it mean to have one's mind controlled? is one aware when it is happening to them? can they say same about you saying it?

for instance, many materialists assume they are closest to the 'facts', 'truth' dont they? evidence of that is everyday here
but what does 'facts' and 'truth' MEAN. are thy leaving stuff out/ not registering what is being left out. i very much think so.

 

[Ophiolite]

Your single source that you continue to cite is Bagemihl's work. Now I have not read it, but I have read reviews of it. So far I have deliberately restricted myself to reviews that are favourable towards it.
Note the following:
1. I have never denied that animals engage in homosexual behaviour.
2. Bagemihl presents many examples of it.
3. Nowehere in his book, as far as I can determine, does he claim that homosexual behaviour takes precedence over heterosexual behaviour. Please quote chapter and verse if he does so.

 

[Buddha1]

Your single source that you continue to cite is Bagemihl's work. Now I have not read it, but I have read reviews of it. So far I have deliberately restricted myself to reviews that are favourable towards it.
Note the following:
1. I have never denied that animals engage in homosexual behaviour.
2. Bagemihl presents many examples of it.
3. Nowehere in his book, as far as I can determine, does he claim that homosexual behaviour takes precedence over heterosexual behaviour. Please quote chapter and verse if he does so.

This is the first time you've left trolling to actually get down to a discussion of the evidences I've provided. I hope you keep this up!

To start with I will give you this link:
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/adventuresofjoedirt/59/13.html


It quotes Bagemihl as follows:

“The nuclear heterosexual family, if you look across the whole animal species is really the exception, rather than the rule,” author Bruce Bagemihl (pronounced “bog-a-meal”) said in an interview. Though common among birds, male-female pairing beyond momentary encounters is found in only 5 percent of mammals. In some species, such as California’s northern elephant seal, 90 percent of males never attempt to breed.

 

[Buddha1]

Here is what it says about how science has treated what it has marginalised and denigrated as 'homosexuality':

Homosexuality and bisexuality don’t trigger hostility within the animal world. Yet they often upset researchers, one of whom lamented a “lowering of moral standards” among butterflies. And mirroring abuse once inflicted on human homosexuals, scientists have tortured homosexual animals in experiments to find out what’s “wrong” with them.

So much for science and its objectivity.

 

[Buddha1]

Your single source that you continue to cite is Bagemihl's work. Now I have not read it, but I have read reviews of it. So far I have deliberately restricted myself to reviews that are favourable towards it.
Note the following:
1. I have never denied that animals engage in homosexual behaviour.
2. Bagemihl presents many examples of it.
3. Nowehere in his book, as far as I can determine, does he claim that homosexual behaviour takes precedence over heterosexual behaviour. Please quote chapter and verse if he does so.

It is surprising that inspite of being a scientist and living in the west, you do not know much about Bagemihl's ground breaking work. What do you ascribe this to? Whether you accept it or not, it's the heterosexual mechanism developed to suppress truth that sidelines such an important research --- out of reach from even the scientists, leave alone the masses.

If you compare the press coverage and importance that Bagemihl's work has recieved with the coverage that the researches around 'causes of homomosexuality' gets you'll know what I'm talking about. All the institutions of the heterosexual society --- including science and media reflect the insidious hidden motives of distorting the truth.

Bagemihl has done another Darwin --- that's how important he is. If he is right then many of Darwin's now well accepted theories upon which the modern biology is built will be proven false. But does that trigger an intense debate amongst the peers you have such faith in? Certainly, if this science forum is any indication it doesn't. In fact apart from some isolated 'gay' individuals and groups no one is giving any heed to his extensive work. The institution that should have taken it up most vigorously (science) has treated it as it Bagemihl hasn't happened. Science is unabashedly back at its "life is all about reproduction business".

 

[Buddha1]

More links:

Flipper is bisexual, as are many other marine mammals


One excerpt:

From age 10 onward, most male Dolphins form pair-bonds with another male, and because they do not usually father calves until they are 20-25 years old, this can be an extended period—10-15 years—of principally same-sex interaction. Later, when they begin mating heterosexually, they still retain their primary male pair-bonds, and in some populations male pairs and trios cooperate in herding females or in interacting homosexually with Spotted Dolphins.

(admittedly, I don't concur with the terminology 'bisexual', 'homosexual', 'heterosexually'!)

Also sample this:

Homosexual interactions are an integral and important part of male Orca (Killer whale) social life.

 

[Buddha1]

Sample how science is biased against male-male bonds (how do you explain that? Why shouldn't the scientific community come to grips with its bigotry?):

(BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE)

Bagemihl ridicules ingenious explanations researchers have given for why animals might appear not to be straight arrows. It's dominance. It's a contest of stamina. It's barter for food. It's aggression. It's appeasement. They're confused and don't realize that they're both
the same sex. It's a way of reducing tension. They're just playing! And my favorite: It's a greeting.:

And do you know how scientists get away with this blatant hogwash? --- by using Darwin as an excuse.

 

[Buddha1]

It is clear that we must see what ever the scientific community (including peers) tells us about sexuality with extreme caution and disbelief --- considering the extreme hostility, bigotry and misinformation practised by it.

So much for peer-reviewed papers.

 

[MetaKron]

Sample how science is biased against male-male bonds (how do you explain that? Why shouldn't the scientific community come to grips with its bigotry?):

(BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE)

Bagemihl ridicules ingenious explanations researchers have given for why animals might appear not to be straight arrows. It's dominance. It's a contest of stamina. It's barter for food. It's aggression. It's appeasement. They're confused and don't realize that they're both
the same sex. It's a way of reducing tension. They're just playing! And my favorite: It's a greeting.:

And do you know how scientists get away with this blatant hogwash? --- by using Darwin as an excuse.

They get away with it because it's what the ruling elite want to hear, that is, it's what they want us to hear.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is the first time you've left trolling to actually get down to a discussion of the evidences I've provided. I hope you keep this up!

Inappropriate move on two counts:
1. I am not trolling, nor have I been trolling at any point.
2. I have previously challenged the relevance of your citations. You chose to ignore them.

So now, as justification for your speculations, you are citing something a scientist with an extreme view says in an interview. Get real. Please provide some evidence of his contentions that comes from quality sources: they don't even need to be peer reviewed. If you can find anything pm me. I shan't see it here. You are on Ignore.