You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Science is not a perfect institution
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
All medicines that the modern science produces are based on a faulty principle --- one that sees humans made out of independant sub-parts, with the notion that if anything goes wrong with the human individual you can attribute the problem to the most visibly affected part, fix just that particular part and everything will be O.K. Much like cars and machines are made.duendy said:eally ineresting genep. Yes i too have heard of what you speak, and you speak as an insider.
I would also like us to remember the millions of animal victims who keep tis horrendous show on the road.
I am of course not criticizing all medicine, as that's be silly, but there is massive abuse. again, like with the mental health part of it, it is the greed to push drugs.
So, if you get an infection in one part, you'll be inundated with anti-biotics that do kill the bacteria in that part, but at the same time kills all the beneficial organisms that are essential for a healthy survival by filling you up with poison, and doing permanent harm to the body as a whole.
To rid farm produce of pests, they spray plants with poisonous chemicals not giving a damn about the millions of other flora and fauna that maintain the delicate natural balance (ecological balaince), that get killed in the process --- and foolishly uncaring about how it affects the farm produce --- that we eventually have to eat. As a result, millions of people today have developed 'incurable' health problems (including severe allergies) because of eating these farm produce. Health problems for which science has no explanations or 'cures'. But too arrogant to admit it, science then blames these health problems on 'psychological abnormalities' --- "It's all in the head!"
Science is too short-sighted. And that is a dangerous thing. Because science has become too powerful. It knows a number of secrets of nature with which it is capable of making several 'careless', anti-nature inventions --- that at best only provide short term solutions or bring unrequired power, but spell doom for the human kind as their side effects.
Last edited:
Science is very very superficial --- like the modern society it has created. So the medicine too tries to cure health problems very very superficially (although arrogantly). Therefore, most of modern medicine foolishly targets the outer symptoms of a problem --- not its roots.Buddha1 said:All medicines that the modern science produces are based on a faulty principle --- one that sees humans made out of independant sub-parts, with the notion that if anything goes wrong with the human individual you can attribute the problem to the most visibly affected part, fix just that particular part and everything will be O.K. Much like cars and machines are made.
Too much "society", not enough science. That sounds like the title of a book or a thread.
The sciences of health, hygiene, and biology got corrupted to serve the ruling elite. Take evolution for one example. You can't tell me that the rabbit is an example of the survival of the fittest. They are just fit enough to give a dog, coyote, or wolf good exercise before turning into food. They are, however, good for food and for maintaining the ecological balance. Homosexuality used to be deemed an illness. Now they say that it's not an illness, it just spreads illness. It's the same mindset placed under the next shell. Less value is placed on personal cleanliness, physical fitness, and good self-care than on the use of drugs to correct conditions that develop, yet the drugs, physicians, and surgery required cost many times more than the stuff that really works. We fear harmless natural entities but don't take to heart the fact that what kills us is a sedentary lifestyle and bad food.
The sciences of health, hygiene, and biology got corrupted to serve the ruling elite. Take evolution for one example. You can't tell me that the rabbit is an example of the survival of the fittest. They are just fit enough to give a dog, coyote, or wolf good exercise before turning into food. They are, however, good for food and for maintaining the ecological balance. Homosexuality used to be deemed an illness. Now they say that it's not an illness, it just spreads illness. It's the same mindset placed under the next shell. Less value is placed on personal cleanliness, physical fitness, and good self-care than on the use of drugs to correct conditions that develop, yet the drugs, physicians, and surgery required cost many times more than the stuff that really works. We fear harmless natural entities but don't take to heart the fact that what kills us is a sedentary lifestyle and bad food.
Sedentary lifestyle is a 'gift' of science. We are getting more and more used to luxuries brought about by technology which comes at the cost of 'nature'.MetaKron said:but don't take to heart the fact that what kills us is a sedentary lifestyle and bad food.
And it could be so much better. Just look at our garbage to get a measure of how much stuff, in real-world terms, we actually have and use. We were actually productive enough to support a whole set of other species at one time, and we're throwing that down the tubes.
Even if we assume that life is only about survival, even then science is working against nature --- because we don't need science for survival. And all the luxuries and power that science gets for us is not needed for survival --- many are seriously threatening our survival.MetaKron said:Take evolution for one example. You can't tell me that the rabbit is an example of the survival of the fittest.
Stupidity and Greed. But it is doing it in the name of science and using it.MetaKron said:It's not science that's doing it to us, it's stupidity.
Buddha1 said:Stupidity and Greed. But it is doing it in the name of science and using it.
And it's an abuse of science. Anything good can be abused.
I think we are now discussing a very basic point. Is science different from the institution of science? In that case what is science?MetaKron said:And it's an abuse of science. Anything good can be abused.
I think one pointer to the hypotheses that science is a modern phenomenon is that there was no name for what we call 'science' in the ancient and non-modern, non-western societies.
Does anyone know if there was a word for science in the ancient world? Does anyone know when the word science was soined or used for the first time?
I have a (yet unxplored) hunch that science has a strong relationship with 'heterosexualisation' of humans. Natural heterosexual male has a tendency to be short-sighted, selfish (interested only in the safety and security of the immediate family) and pragmatic. With forced heterosexualisation of man this tendency slowly became prominent and started to characterise the humankind. Science is one of the results of that heterosexualisation. It's only a hunch, but a strong one.
I think the main argument of those who distinguish science from the scientific institutiojn is that they say science is nothing but logical thinking.
In my opinion logical thinking/ analysis has the same relationship with science, as spirituality has with religion.
In other words:
Logical Thinking: Science :: Spirituality: religion
Science is based purportedly on logical thinking. But science is not logical thinking itself. It is supposed to use logical thinking and analysis as a tool to understand --- with the motive of exploiting, the physical aspects of nature, in order to (what is purported to) benefit the human kind. That is the theory. In practise science often distorts logical thinking, just as religion is a misuse of spirituality.
Science as an institution is a tool for consolidating social power (that comes out of blind faith of the masses) as is Religion.
Just as religion is based on spirituality but it is not spirituality itself. Religion is very much a physical materialistic concept (like science) which is used to consolidate social power in the name of spirituality, but often abuses and misrepresents it.
Both science and religion easily become a tool in the hand of the powerful ideology --- be it the state power or the 'public opinion'.
In my opinion logical thinking/ analysis has the same relationship with science, as spirituality has with religion.
In other words:
Logical Thinking: Science :: Spirituality: religion
Science is based purportedly on logical thinking. But science is not logical thinking itself. It is supposed to use logical thinking and analysis as a tool to understand --- with the motive of exploiting, the physical aspects of nature, in order to (what is purported to) benefit the human kind. That is the theory. In practise science often distorts logical thinking, just as religion is a misuse of spirituality.
Science as an institution is a tool for consolidating social power (that comes out of blind faith of the masses) as is Religion.
Just as religion is based on spirituality but it is not spirituality itself. Religion is very much a physical materialistic concept (like science) which is used to consolidate social power in the name of spirituality, but often abuses and misrepresents it.
Both science and religion easily become a tool in the hand of the powerful ideology --- be it the state power or the 'public opinion'.
interesting question. i a not ure. i will do a little search about that.Buddha1 said:I think we are now discussing a very basic point. Is science different from the institution of science? In that case what is science?
I think one pointer to the hypotheses that science is a modern phenomenon is that there was no name for what we call 'science' in the ancient and non-modern, non-western societies.
Does anyone know if there was a word for science in the ancient world? Does anyone know when the word science was soined or used for the first time?
I am sure i have shared about Galieleo's emergence as originator of scienceas we knowit here. ie., R.D.Laing outlined ths emergence, and its scientific method. this method straightaway leaves out QUALITY from its mode of operation...'out goes, sight, touch, value...' etc.......not wanting to stir up things....th one doesn't have to try. bt the ones t this forum who seem to have scientific metod as a 'religion' adequately show the arrogance of this ...method. are a perfect illustration of it actually. am not saying ALL materialist scientists re like that, but......
You see i dont think 'scince' just began with Galileo. i think that one-sided mechancial understanidng of it started. Fpor i dont see why people who dont separate 'spirit' from matter cannot be scientific. why it is that if you use intuition, and values, and heart etc, that yu can't be scientific.
all the time we are inquiring and finding out. and it is better to do so wholly than reductivley
we have been talking about health, for example. for me, health isn't about some pills etc that just try and blast symptoms away. Health means bodymind AND environemnt. The wholoe. sure you can be 'healthy' according to medcal scientific criteria yet be causght up in a hostile community, asmany of us are. is this healthy? NO
Science refers to the elaborate 'standardised' system developed by the human society at a particular point of time in their civilisation, to organise this 'rational'/ 'logical' thinking in isolation from other forms of human perception (like instinct) which has been further modified to sometimes extreme levels --- as in studying everything in isolation from its whole.Buddha1 said:Science is based purportedly on logical thinking. But science is not logical thinking itself. It is supposed to use logical thinking and analysis as a tool to understand --- with the motive of exploiting, the physical aspects of nature, in order to (what is purported to) benefit the human kind.
This system which has become extremely powerful has been developed on the basis of the religious institution --- with appointed and elected heads, which brings into the whole picture extreme and sometimes dirty politics into the whole 'science' thing --- which further reduces the efficacy of the original goal of science --- and it becoming just a tool in the hands of those in power.
You could be writhing with pain or unable to eat properly, yet be medically fit.duendy said:we have been talking about health, for example. for me, health isn't about some pills etc that just try and blast symptoms away. Health means bodymind AND environemnt. The wholoe. sure you can be 'healthy' according to medcal scientific criteria yet be causght up in a hostile community, asmany of us are. is this healthy? NO
That is a heavy pointer that science as a 'skewed', partial view of truth started as a response to exploits of Christianity --- and that is why it is still considered a western phenomenon by the rest of the world.duendy said:I am sure i have shared about Galieleo's emergence as originator of scienceas we knowit here. ie., R.D.Laing outlined ths emergence,
Organised religion had fooled and persecuted the west so much that the society slowly grew extremely suspicious of 'spirituality' and anything which could not be physically verified. Thus came up the concept of science. This is my hypothesis.
And this is a subtle pointer that science has something to do with 'heterosexuality' and the 'short-sightedness' and 'greed' associated with it.duendy said:R.D.Laing outlined ths emergence, and its scientific method. this method straightaway leaves out QUALITY from its mode of operation...'out goes, sight, touch, value...' etc.......not wanting to stir up things....th one doesn't have to try.
I have briefly talked about the relationship between quality and male-male bonds, when quantity denotes male-female bonds. In my opinion:
quality: quantity:: male-male bonds/ need: male-female bonds/ need
With the extreme focus on quantity, with the exclusion of quality (which is a hangover from religion), came science as a concept. No wonder science is basically anti male-male bonds/ desire. If this hypothesis is true, then bringing about the complete truth about human sexuality is only possible by discarding 'science' as we know it, and adopting a 'wholistic' (or is it wholesome) view.
The removal of human beings from their nature through their heterosexualisation has further made them disrespectful and exploitative of nature --- with the added vices of 'short-sightedness' and 'greed', which makes science doubly dangerous.
Of course the very concept and motives of science are questionable.Buddha1 said:which further reduces the efficacy of the original goal of science
Why should we not have a 'wholesome' method to understand the 'truth'?
Why should only an elected body have the sole authority to decide what is truth? Why should everything be standardised and universal? Why can't different approaches to truth co-exist --- with people having the real choice to choose one or more paths to truth.
Why can't progress be defined as something that takes us closer to our nature --- rather than that which takes us away from it! Anything that involves harming our inside/ outside nature should be deemed 'negative progress'.