I am utterly perplexed by the apparent assertion that reduction to scientific explanations renders a belief less valid all while that's /precisely/ what tends to distinguish a belief from a fact, confirming the validity thereof.
I've often suggested exactly what you have. People who try to explain and/or control/manipulate various aspects of the world via magic and rules thereof are attempting to do the same thing that scientists are but they're using fake rules instead of physical constants and the laws of physics. Science is /real/ magic.
My comment is more about dissenting opinions from people in ivory towers than two people engaging in discourse. There's a lot science doesn't know, and there are probably a lot of things that the scientists of today would call phony if presented with the science of tomorrow.
Like the frozen water molecules, the ones shown love freeze beautifully and the ones shown hate freeze with little design. And the plants afraid of being burned whose reactions can be observed through a polygraph. Science can't explain that right now, right? But these things can be tested and examined.
For my personal growth, development, and actualization I utilize psychology, philosophy, and spiritual teachings. It's not the only thing I value, but I've needed to make changes so it's become a big part of my life.
I don't look at science the same way as philosophy, though. To me science is the framework of how everything physically works. Like grass is green because it has chlorophyll, birds can fly because the wind pushes them up, the wind blows because the air is moving to a lower pressure.
I usually first perceive things scientifically, and then analyze them in an open ended sort of way. I just want to clarify a little about how I operate, I think science is magic too.
Honestly, I think they take Descartes Objective Reality far too seriously. Scientific facts stand on their own regardless of whether they are perceived or not. There's just no reason to be spooked by a tree falling unless it were to fall in the woods of quantum entanglement.
I do believe in science and I don't believe something exists if I think it, that's cognitive and confirmation bias, and probably narcissistic.
I was a little tired when I wrote that comment above, but my main point is that there are things we can observe that can augment our reality but that science can't explain as of yet. Like the Baghdad battery, they probably didn't know how it worked but they used it for something.
My understanding and application of my spiritual sense is probably on the more unique side, I admit. I still enjoy being able to have conversations with people who understand the more scientific, though. It's exasperating to have people immediately shut you down. It's enriching to share viewpoints and make rationalizations.
I believe in the universe
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I am utterly perplexed by the apparent assertion that reduction to scientific explanations renders a belief less valid all while that's /precisely/ what tends to distinguish a belief from a fact, confirming the validity thereof.
I've often suggested exactly what you have. People who try to explain and/or control/manipulate various aspects of the world via magic and rules thereof are attempting to do the same thing that scientists are but they're using fake rules instead of physical constants and the laws of physics. Science is /real/ magic.
--
[Old Memory]
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Bazinga
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My comment is more about dissenting opinions from people in ivory towers than two people engaging in discourse. There's a lot science doesn't know, and there are probably a lot of things that the scientists of today would call phony if presented with the science of tomorrow.
Like the frozen water molecules, the ones shown love freeze beautifully and the ones shown hate freeze with little design. And the plants afraid of being burned whose reactions can be observed through a polygraph. Science can't explain that right now, right? But these things can be tested and examined.
For my personal growth, development, and actualization I utilize psychology, philosophy, and spiritual teachings. It's not the only thing I value, but I've needed to make changes so it's become a big part of my life.
I don't look at science the same way as philosophy, though. To me science is the framework of how everything physically works. Like grass is green because it has chlorophyll, birds can fly because the wind pushes them up, the wind blows because the air is moving to a lower pressure.
I usually first perceive things scientifically, and then analyze them in an open ended sort of way. I just want to clarify a little about how I operate, I think science is magic too.
Honestly, I think they take Descartes Objective Reality far too seriously. Scientific facts stand on their own regardless of whether they are perceived or not. There's just no reason to be spooked by a tree falling unless it were to fall in the woods of quantum entanglement.
--
[Old Memory]
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I do believe in science and I don't believe something exists if I think it, that's cognitive and confirmation bias, and probably narcissistic.
I was a little tired when I wrote that comment above, but my main point is that there are things we can observe that can augment our reality but that science can't explain as of yet. Like the Baghdad battery, they probably didn't know how it worked but they used it for something.
My understanding and application of my spiritual sense is probably on the more unique side, I admit. I still enjoy being able to have conversations with people who understand the more scientific, though. It's exasperating to have people immediately shut you down. It's enriching to share viewpoints and make rationalizations.