Science is not a perfect institution

ooohhh Oph...would EYE wanna trap you...?..asif, hehe

no. seriously. see all the suggestions you gave--as a scientist--when i simply asked you what is matter/energy. now you may say i framed the question so as FOR a scientific answer, true....but it was asked after your claim that 'science does not want to explain everything'....so in a way i was trikstering you to come wit AN 'explanation' i suppose. if say a Native American of long ago was asked what is 'matter' would any scientist take hir explanation seriously do you suppose?
 
All scientific answers are, as I and others have repeatedly noted, provisional. You may be attracted to the Native American's definition because it combines the material observation with the spiritual interpretation. That would make it unattractive to the scientist, because it breaks the rules by which science is played. Science is a branch of philosophy. When a scientist doffs his lab coat and lights up his philosophical pipe, then he can consider that mixed definition, but not when he is acting as a scientist.
I hope you wouldn't take the definition seriously. That would be an insult to the Native American and all the thinkers who have followed on from him.
Our strenght as a species lies partly in our development of culture, and the consequent ability to pass detailed information on from generation to generation, and so build our understanding of the world.
What science does is to develop that understanding in a specific sphere - the material world - in a way that would have been unimaginable to most of our ancestors. [And frankly , appears unimaginable to many alive and posting today.] This had delivered the material progress we enjoy. You may feel it is not progress. I would disagree.
 
hey
wasnt it planck that said..."an important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents ... what does happen is that its opponents gradually die out."
 
...or would we spit em out...?
Oph....someting yu said stands out. where you say that te 'scientist' is like...like...some kind of Dr Jekel and Mr Hyde type persona)s)......when A 'scientist' 'spirit-uality' is not even considered..?

what does this say about the PHILOSOPHY of science then? i second guess you will say 'spirit' cannot be proven to exist, because science cannot measure it.....right?
 
I think you know science is not perfect from numbers, especialy fractions, at least in my opinion. I mean why is 1/3 = 33.33333333. You are always going to do your own rounding up or conclusion. But that goes to show that life itself and the material universe is not perfect, and since poor old science emulates and duplicates the universe its always going to find a hard time being perfect, at least to us. And I think somewhere in this gap is where good old philosophy or observation comes in. The only thing thats ever going to be perfect is your own observation, proven time after time. Perfection is as superficial as colors.
 
Last edited:
Quite right, observation is the real science of things. However math is the heart of all quantitative observation and expressions. Art is a science given that it has to do with observations, thats why we have the academy of arts and sciences for example. Art lacks pattern sometimes but not stories like chemistry, biology, and physics also do, and the sciences we choose to study are usually based on their utility. Almost everything we do is based on the utilitarian approach.
 
Last edited:
duendy said:
what does this say about the PHILOSOPHY of science then? i second guess you will say 'spirit' cannot be proven to exist, because science cannot measure it.....right?
Click to expand...
Why would I say a dumb thing like that.
Evolution does not concern itself with helium oxygen mix ratios for saturation dives.
Biochemistry does not concern itself with binary eutectics in silicate melts.
Tennis strategy does not concern itself with field identification of species of even toed ungulates.
Students of the history of the dissipation of Guild stength during the reign of Henry the VII do not conern themselves with the Haitian recipe for guacamole.
Science does not concern itself with things spiritual.

The concept is remarkably simple.
 
Buddha1 said:
Since the original thread to discuss the issue is now discussing a sub-issue "mental illness", I've decided to create a new thread to continue the original discussion.

I'm saying that Science is not a perfect human institution. It has many flaws in it --- just like any other human institutions. And being a human institution it is subject to all the drawbacks that human beings are capable of.

Therefore, we should not accept with closed eyes whatever those in charge of this human institution tell us in the name of "science". Even the common man should have the right to question the 'results' and show how they could be wrong.

"Science is getting away from nature and working against it!"

My other contention is that Science represents the exploitation of nature, and hence it is a harmful human institution. At least it has become as such. If we want to save our species as well as mother earth, we have to change 'science' as we know it.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhhh…let me guess:

Science is a vile Heterosexual conspiracy, meant to reinterpret sexuality so as to convince mankind that sex is about procreation – usually involving a male and a female – and not a method of socializing and getting ‘down-and-dirty’.

Does anyone else think its mere coincidence that the male penis is tubular and roundish, like the human sphincter, and the vagina is like a slit, more like a finger?

Common people, can it be more obvious what WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE?!!!!

We’ve been duped.
No wonder this battle of the sexes has no end.
 
One thing is true. Several domineering religions have presented themselves in the way that Buddha1 describes. If you are not heterosexual, God hates you. They are so obsessed, so controlled by the obsession, that they might as well be considered "the forces of heterosexuality." They have manipulated and murdered for this title. Then they do what they can to manipulate science to support a one-sided view of what constitutes sexuality.
 
MetaKron said:
One thing is true. Several domineering religions have presented themselves in the way that Buddha1 describes. If you are not heterosexual, God hates you. They are so obsessed, so controlled by the obsession, that they might as well be considered "the forces of heterosexuality." They have manipulated and murdered for this title. Then they do what they can to manipulate science to support a one-sided view of what constitutes sexuality.
Click to expand...
I agree.

From my personal experience I now know that it was science that made me think I was attracted to women, when I secretly salivated over men.

The only question is how all those pre-civilization creatures were duped into heterosexuality, before science was around to cloud their reason with propaganda?

I think that the fact that nature created only two sexes is purely coincidental, and itself a scientific conspiracy.
We are in fact two different species that have been talked into having sex with one another.

I mean what pretentious bull it is to believe that sex is a natural method of procreating and has no other function, when it is obvious that it does.

Fight the fight, my gay brother…sista….whatever. :)
 
There isn't any need for me to identify myself with a particular gender or preference, even if medically I am male. It's not even wise to do so since it's way too close to literally giving them a handle on my gonads. If my preference is heterosexual, it seems to come at the penalty of losing the capacity for insight, because of course my mind is expected to follow "heterosexual" channels, like preferring to watch sports over Sci-fi Channel, having to drink beer every day after work, thinking of the wife as my "bitch" and never getting the beer out of the fridge myself or having to open my own bag of pork rinds. If I am not like that, I'm a "fairy" by default.

I'm not going to distance myself from one kind of stereotyping just to push myself into another. I am not going to be a noncomformist by dressing up just like other noncomformists.
 
Kudos to you my friend.
It takes balls to acknowledge that you and your wife both wear the pants in the family.

What’s all this hubbub about a man having to penetrate a woman, anyways?
Why can’t a woman, strap one on, and rip her man a new one?
What kind of gender stereotyping forces a man to have sex with a woman?

And so what if I enjoy wearing women’s lingerie and getting spanked, like a naughty girl?
Heterosexual culture will have us believe that there’s something wrong with us…more feminine men. :eek:

Why must we all watch Football when knitting is much more productive and fun?
And if I want to be my wife’s bitch then that’s my right.
Who designated these antiquated gender roles anyways?

Did someone make a rule where a man had to hunt, when he only wanted to pick cherries and nuts and gossip with the girls?
Did anyone make a rule where I had to have large muscles and a deep voice, when I prefer to be more delicate and soft?

And so what if my woman slaps me around a bit, when I mouth-off on her?
Does that make me less of a man?
Nope!

Who decided what a man was anyways?
Nature?!!!
I think not!
Society…Heterosexual society did.
The institution of science forced these rules upon us.

So, now I have to bite back my tears when I watch Bambi, and I have to be ashamed of watching General Hospital or because I make a wicked soufflé. I have to pretend I’m macho and tough when I only want to be held, like mommy used to.

And so what if my penis is only two inches long?!!!!
Does that make me less of a man?
No. We are all equal, gentelmen!!!
Size doesn't matter.

Geez, people, get with the times.
Modern man is here. We are all civilized human beings.
How can we be still swayed by primitive ideas and theories concerning sexuality and behaviour?
Sexuality is a choice.


Has anyone read this retard?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29597

Sheesh!!!!! What a Neanderthal?!

Anyway, does anyone have a good recipe for Goose a l’orange?
I’m having the guys over for dinner and a game of twister next week and I wanted to make something special.
Bob is going to come. He's sooooo cute.
He’s so smart too.
He watches Star Trek and BattleStar Gallactica.

I’m going to wear by corduroy slacks with my holiday red and green sweater.
Makes my ass look smaller.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that Neanderthal doesn't deserve the attention that he thinks he does.

Women being weaker than men is sexually unappealing and often a giant pain in the backside. I like it when Australian for "no" is a big guy flying through the screen door and landing on his backside in the dust. When I help her move her furniture it will be nice to have her lift the other end of the couch. Also, it would be nice if when we had sex she actually participated, instead of acting like God had decided that only one of us would enjoy it, and not very much.

These ideas have to be termed "primitive", the ones that we are protesting, and they were obsolete when they were thought up, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top