The Science Delusion

[Duke Wellington]

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

Yet 99% of our society think mathematic formula describe reality. Nature does not mirror the mind.

 

[XenoFish]

10 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

Yet 99% of our society think mathematic formula describe reality. Nature does not mirror the mind.

 

A philosopher isn't a scientist by the way and I require citations for this "99%" figure you've given.

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

Yet 99% of our society think mathematic formula describe reality. Nature does not mirror the mind.

 

When a  long leaf pin needle is spun by a dust devil in sugar sand, it forms a perfect circle. He wasn't looking hard enough.....

[papageorge1]

The more I see, the less of reality I believe science really understands at this time. I like science, but do not have the delusion that it is the only way to learn about reality.

[Aquila King]

19 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

Yet 99% of our society think mathematic formula describe reality. Nature does not mirror the mind.

(First off, I would use a more vague term like 'most' or 'the majority' rather then give a number without what Xeno said, giving a citation, but whatever)

There is indeed a science delusion. The delusion isn't in anyway a problem with the scientific process itself, merely a delusion on the part of the practitioners of it (the mainstream scientific establishment), and those who defend them.

A good article that truly lays this problem out says the following:

Quote

So then, is science a religion, you might ask? Well, yes and no. Technically, science is not a religion. It is a methodology of investigation through evidence and inquiry to arrive at logical conclusions. As such, science is a TOOL, like a computer. It is not an entity that holds dogmas or ideologies, like people do. Therefore, science is not pro or anti-paranormal, anymore than a pencil, computer program or mathematical formula is.

However, the scientific establishment is another matter, because it involves people, politics, power, money, institutions and vested interests. And as such, politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression are naturally a part of it. Realists know and understand this. But for some reason pseudoskeptics don't.

The key fallacy that pseudoskeptics make is lumping the scientific method and process with the scientific establishment into one, assuming that they are one and the same. That is the major fallacy of the organized skepticism movement, which consists of the JREF, CSICOP and Michael Shermer type crowd. In doing so, they falsely assume that the science and medical establishment is objective and unbiased, free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression. That's where their major mistake is. As such, they deem the science and medical establishment as an unassailable authority that is not to be questioned or challenged. In that sense, they are treating science as a religion. So even though they claim that science is not a religion, they still treat it as such, by holding the views of the science establishment as an unquestionable authority.

...

Furthermore, organized skeptics like to tout "science" as a peer reviewed process of independent replication, and therefore totally reliable. In doing so, they treat it like a "democratic process" in which the majority of scientists decide what's true by agreeing on it. This is another fallacy, because it assumes that most scientists are objective and unbiased, and free to say whatever they want without consequence.

But this is not the way the real world of money, power and politics works. Any realist knows that when you work for an institution or receive funding, you have to "tow the party line", or else you are out. It's that simple. Any scientist who says something that opposes the views of those he works for, will jeopardize his career and reputation. There are many real life examples of scientists and researchers who have lost funding or suffered damage to their career for espousing unorthodox positions, even if their position was legit and evidence-based.

Moreover, most people are not unbiased, open minded, or hold truth as the highest value. Instead, they are concerned with their image, reputation, career, funding, and hold rigid views that they feel safe and comfortable in. Many people do not like uncertainty or mystery. They want a world where things make sense and are predictable and well-defined. That's why they are prone to fall into rigid unchanging belief systems. Why would scientists be any different. They may be more educated than the average person, sure, but they are humans, and humans have biases.

It is the truth seeker and freethinker who questions everything and does not hold any authority as truth, who is most likely to find the truth. Not the most educated or well connected with institutions.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/scientism.php

Science is merely a tool. It is a method of collecting data, and the data (as well as simple observations) are the only 'facts' in science. Everything else it up to the human thoughts, beliefs, interpretations, acts, etc. of fallible human beings. Yet many actively believe and defend the conclusions of these fallible human beings as if their conclusions are infallible and authoritative - no different then any other religion.

A great book on this topic (with the same title as the thread) is by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. Here's his brilliant TED talk (that was conveniently banned since it challenged the status quo of course) by him if you care to watch:

 

[Coil]

Just now, RabidMongoose said:

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

Yet 99% of our society think mathematic formula describe reality. Nature does not mirror the mind.

 

Perfection is not mathematics and not the present nature.All the same the least distorted plants but man and animals are more predators

[khol]

Whats so strange in regards to a mathematical universe? Theres something very fundamental to the fact we use numbers and formulas to explain space and structure. This is not fully understood yet other then to say its ALL MATH. Anything we add to this to explain reality derive from personal thoughts and feelings which are subjective experiences

 

[Duke Wellington]

18 minutes ago, khol said:

hats so strange in regards to a mathematical universe? Theres something very fundamental to the fact we use numbers and formulas to explain space and structure. This is not fully understood yet other then to say its ALL MATH. Anything we add to this to explain reality derive from personal thoughts and feelings which are subjective experiences

 

How many numbers exist between 1 and 2? There are an infinite amount of irrational numbers between the two.

If we measure units of length are their an infinite amount of them in a metre? No, there are exactly 6.25 x 10 to the 35 Planck unit lengths. Do you see the incompatibility?

We use mathematic formula to describe reality but reality comes in building blocks. Therefore the answer maths gives isn't mirrored in reality. All formula are flawed as a tool for describing a reality made out of building blocks unless they deal solely with whole numbers and the answer is a whole number too..

Edited December 18, 2017 by RabidMongoose

[khol]

23 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

How many numbers exist between 1 and 2? There are an infinite amount of irrational numbers between the two.

If we measure units of length are their an infinite amount of them in a metre? No, there are exactly 6.25 x 10 to the 35 Planck unit lengths. Do you see the incompatibility?

We use mathematic formula to describe reality but reality comes in building blocks. Therefore the answer maths gives isn't mirrored in reality. All formula are flawed as a tool for describing a reality made out of building blocks unless they deal solely with whole numbers and the answer is a whole number too..

You yourself are made up of building blocks. Are in fact part of the universe and not seperate from it

[Duke Wellington]

21 minutes ago, khol said:

You yourself are made up of building blocks. Are in fact part of the universe and not seperate from it

As the mind has properties which cannot be replicated in a universe built out of building blocks, I disagree.

[Aquila King]

35 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

How many numbers exist between 1 and 2? There are an infinite amount of irrational numbers between the two.

If we measure units of length are their an infinite amount of them in a metre? No, there are exactly 6.25 x 10 to the 35 Planck unit lengths. Do you see the incompatibility?

We use mathematic formula to describe reality but reality comes in building blocks. Therefore the answer maths gives isn't mirrored in reality. All formula are flawed as a tool for describing a reality made out of building blocks unless they deal solely with whole numbers and the answer is a whole number too..

The same mathematics that theoretical physicists use to 'discover' things about our universe can be applied to any universe with entirely different laws of physics that govern them. Many of the discoveries about our universe are made by mathematics alone. Yet we could use this same math to calculate the physics that govern alternate universes with ease. Moreover, much of the math uses variables that are assumed, and then they calculate how to get said variables to fit, whilst ignoring the possibility that the variables themselves could be wrong.

In short: Mathematics is a useful tool for describing observed phenomena, but it should never be a substitute for observed phenomena. Treating the math as if it were observed phenomena is what leads to theoretical physicists to alter reality to fit the math, rather then alter the math to fit reality. Observation and evidence should always come before math, and the math should only explain observable evidence.

I'm afraid that modern physics may have gone a little too off the deep end by substituting the scientific process with mathematical equations. Their equations may very well fit a theoretical universe, but their math doesn't necessarily prove that that's how our universe operates.

[Duke Wellington]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

The same mathematics that theoretical physicists use to 'discover' things about our universe can be applied to any universe with entirely different laws of physics that govern them. Many of the discoveries about our universe are made by mathematics alone. Yet we could use this same math to calculate the physics that govern alternate universes with ease. Moreover, much of the math uses variables that are assumed, and then they calculate how to get said variables to fit, whilst ignoring the possibility that the variables themselves could be wrong.

In short: Mathematics is a useful tool for describing observed phenomena, but it should never be a substitute for observed phenomena. Treating the math as if it were observed phenomena is what leads to theoretical physicists to alter reality to fit the math, rather then alter the math to fit reality. Observation and evidence should always come before math, and the math should only explain observable evidence.

I'm afraid that modern physics may have gone a little too off the deep end by substituting the scientific process with mathematical equations. Their equations may very well fit a theoretical universe, but their math doesn't necessarily prove that that's how our universe operates.

After theoretical physicists have been looking at formulae too long they begin to think reality is the formulae. Maths is a descriptive tool more perfect than the things its trying to describe. You cannot have mathematical perfection in a material universe.

[khol]

8 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

As the mind has properties which cannot be replicated in a universe built out of building blocks, I disagree.

How do you know this ? Again its our failure to have any conception of timespans that create problems.. Things dont materialize over night. We have to think in terms of billions of years

[eight bits]

RM

Quote

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

You might want to check out fractal geometry, pioneered by the late Benoit Mandelbrot, and still an active research area. It bothered him, too, that simple (not "perfect," whatever that means, just simple) forms were usually rough approximations to reality, rather than precise descriptions of real shapes. So, he ramped up the math so that it could deal with real shapes - simply, just not as simply as the less faithful approximations.

From a historical perspective, Mandelbrot continued a trend in science and math launched by Kepler, Copernicus and that gang. Ancients thought planetary orbits were circular. Turned out they aren't. To exquisite approximation, they're another conic section instead: ellipses.

Except Mercury, it's more a rosette pattern. Einstein nailed down why. With a certain level of preparation, his math is simple, too, just not as simple as the conic sections.

You didn't mention who the philosopher was, what he (I'm only guessing "he") said verbatim, and in what context. I'm thinking those might have been important to the discussion.

Quote

Nature does not mirror the mind.

And scientists generally would disagree with that, in your view?

Edited December 18, 2017 by eight bits
clarifying

[Doug1029]

On 12/18/2017 at 1:12 PM, XenoFish said:

A philosopher isn't a scientist by the way and I require citations for this "99%" figure you've given.

Haven't you heard?  Trump has declared that words like "evidence" and "fact-based" are no longer to be used in government literature.  The US govt is now officially supersticious.  Where's my thesarus?

Doug

[RoofGardener]

23 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Haven't you heard?  Trump has declared that words like "evidence" and "fact-based" are no longer to be used in government literature.  The US govt is now officially supersticious.  Where's my thesarus?

Doug

No, he did not. Some long-serving Civil Servant did.

And you can't have the thesaurus... it's under the short leg of the table in the Guild of Moderators staff room ! If you take it, the table will wobble, and Tiggs and Lilly will spill their cups of tea. And you do NOT want THAT to happen !

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 12/18/2017 at 2:40 PM, Aquila King said:

There is indeed a science delusion. The delusion isn't in anyway a problem with the scientific process itself, merely a delusion on the part of the practitioners of it (the mainstream scientific establishment), and those who defend them.

The issue I have with your position on this is that in my view you are making an error in thinking that 'the mainstream scientific establishment' equals your definition of 'pseudo-skeptics'.  The positions you attribute to 'pseudo-skeptics' are indeed made by them (of course, tautologically, since you are defining what that word means), but only by some in the mainstream scientific establishment. 

The excerpt from the article has quite a few straw men from what I can see; provide one quote from any leader in the 'organized skeptic movement' who assumes that scientists/scientific establishment are objective and unbiased.  I've never seen it, and I think it's more an issue of the author of that article making assumptions himself and/or trying to handwave away from what scientists do say.

[Doug1029]

Have you ever heard of the "approximately spherical chicken?"

Whenever we discuss chickens, we are interested in just one or two aspects of them.  Where one is can be represented by a single point on a two-dimensional graph.  How big it is can be approximated by a sphere.  Mathematically we can use this to represent anything about a chicken we want to know.  The more we want to know, the more data points we will need.

Math, at least the way it is used in the sciences, is not supposed to be "perfect."   I can't wait until you get to statistics.

Doug

[8th_wall]

On 12/19/2017 at 5:01 AM, RabidMongoose said:

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

Yet 99% of our society think mathematic formula describe reality. Nature does not mirror the mind.

 

Well...  Do you believe that a perfect simulation of reality is on the horizon?

I think of math as 2 dimensional.  Of course it will never be perfect at mirroring reality all of reality as a result.  However higher dimensional constructs can be encoded and described in a 2 dimensional framework if you're careful.

[Doug1029]

On 12/18/2017 at 1:01 PM, RabidMongoose said:

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

Yet 99% of our society think mathematic formula describe reality. Nature does not mirror the mind.

 

Mathematics do describe reality.  But how accurately is another question.  You can't paint a picture of reality using oil paints.  What makes you think you should be able to do it with math?

Doug

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

provide one quote from any leader in the 'organized skeptic movement' who assumes that scientists/scientific establishment are objective and unbiased. I've never seen it

They don't even need to put it in quotes, their silence towards established orthodoxy speaks for itself.

For Example: One of their biggest hypocrisies is that they preach out against all alternative medicine and remedies, calling them dangerous 'quackery', yet they say nothing about the thousands of people who die every year from prescription drugs or by the incompetence and scandals of the pharmaceutical companies. If they really cared about saving lives, you'd think they'd speak up wouldn't you? But no, they could care less about saving lives, or even about truth for that matter, cause deep down, they are all about protecting establishments, including the pharmaceutical and medical establishments.

Provide one example where anyone in the organized 'Skeptic' movement ever questioned or critiqued anything held by establishment orthodoxy.

If you've followed the work of Randi, Shermer or CSICOP, ask yourself this: Have you ever seen them criticize anything of the establishment, including crimes, murders, lies, conspiracies, evil plots, etc? I'll bet not.

Consider the following documented facts and let me ask you:

• Do they ever speak out against the senseless killings in the Iraq War for power and profit? - Nope.
• Do they ever admit that the US Navy was wrong to fake the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 (which has now been exposed) which resulted in the deaths of 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, making the war and their deaths a FRAUD? - Nope.
• Are they outraged with the fact that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking for many years, which even some in the mainstream media have reported? Or the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders who refused to abide by US policy? - Nope.
• Are they outraged that the EPA lied after 9/11 that the air was safe to breathe, which caused thousands of First Responders to develop cancer from the toxic air and slowly die? - Nope.
• Are they outraged that upper levels of government have concocted secret plots to sacrifice innocent lives to stage terrorist activities and blame it on others to start wars, such as Operation Northwoods and Operation Dirty Trick? (Google them for more info) - Nope.
• Do they speak out against the thousands of people that die from pharmaceutical drugs every year? - Nope.
• But will they go ballistic if ONE person allegedly dies from alternative treatment such as homeopathy? - Yep.

So, what does it say about them then if they have no problem with lies and evil plots that result in the death of millions, yet have a big problem with the death of a few if alternative medicine is involved?

It tells you that they are one sided with an axe to grind, rather than fair, honest, or objective. They are fanatical defenders of establishment and orthodoxy, holding that side to be blameless. As such they are totally blind to the faults of authority, or deliberately ignore them at least. Their critical thinking and skepticism can ONLY be directed at anything AGAINST the establishment, and NEVER at anything FROM the establishment.

I challenge you to produce a publication from a media skeptic or skeptic organization that openly condemns or criticizes the above crimes of the establishment.

Ask any members of the 'Skeptic' movement to name ANY lies or falsehoods committed by the government or CIA, that has not been reported as official. They will admit to Watergate and Iran Contra of course because those scandals became official, but ask them to name a conspiracy or government lie that did not become official. They can't and won't, because they are uncomfortable challenging the establishment.

If they ever admit that that there is 'of course some bias on the part of mainstream sciences/skeptics etc, including amongst their own', you can almost guarantee they'll follow it up with something like "that's why we have to be skeptical of and question ourselves too", but this is merely meant as a disclaimer used to make themselves appear more genuine and unbiased when their not. Their silence to things that challenge the establishment (such as the controversies listed above) speaks volumes.

[Duke Wellington]

2 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

Well...  Do you believe that a perfect simulation of reality is on the horizon?

I think of math as 2 dimensional.  Of course it will never be perfect at mirroring reality all of reality as a result.  However higher dimensional constructs can be encoded and described in a 2 dimensional framework if you're careful.

No, I think in the coming centuries maths based physics will get thrown out.

What is annoying in the meantime is all the claims that science can explain away the existence of everything and how everything works without the need for a God. No it cant. Maths does not describe reality, it is a perfect mental construct being applied to an imperfect external reality. The inconsistences arent talked about (they were about 150 years back before modern liberal culture took over and started promoting its garbage view of the world).

[Aquila King]

21 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

The inconsistences arent talked about (they were about 150 years back before modern liberal culture took over and started promoting its garbage view of the world).

Ya had me, till you threw in this ^ s**t.

Materialism should not be conflated with the political/cultural climate of our current era. The vast majority of people are not materialists. It may be true that the majority of people in the scientific establishment are materialists, but the average person in the public does not hold this view. So to assume the current political/cultural climate is due to materialist ideologies is terribly disingenuous. So our 'modern liberal culture' has little to do with the current scientific establishment.

[+Liquid Gardens]

21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

One of their biggest hypocrisies is that they preach out against all alternative medicine and remedies, calling them dangerous 'quackery', yet they say nothing about the thousands of people who die every year from prescription drugs or by the incompetence and scandals of the pharmaceutical companies.

Who's 'they'. 'They' do speak about people who die every year from prescription drugs, and people who have adverse reactions to vaccines, etc.  These are basic facts that everyone knows, I don't know why they need repeating.

Here's an actual quote indicating that not 'all' alternative remedies are dangerous (from same link as below):

"Whether either of them is capable of it or not, Goop and Gwyneth Paltrow should be ashamed. By embracing Dr. Brogan, Goop has gone beyond what was mostly lifestyle “wellness” nonsense that probably didn’t do a lot of harm even as it sucked her customers’ wallets dry, straight into the sort of quackery that kills, like HIV/AIDS denialism, antivaccine nonsense, and cancer quackery."

25 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

But no, they could care less about saving lives, or even about truth for that matter, cause deep down, they are all about protecting establishments, including the pharmaceutical and medical establishments.

That would be a lot more believable if the scientific establishment didn't also have families and didn't get sick.  Your theory is that 'the scientific establishment' doesn't care about saving theirs or their loved ones' lives?  In order to protect the establishment?  Uh yea, right.

27 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Provide one example where anyone in the organized 'Skeptic' movement ever questioned or critiqued anything held by establishment orthodoxy.

That's pretty much a no-win scenario; if I give you an example you can refute by saying they are not part of the skeptic movement or what they are critiquing isn't held by the 'orthodoxy' in your opinion.

Does criticism of antibiotics count?  From https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/12/18/dr-kelly-brogans-e-book-vaccines-and-brain-health-a-cornucopia-of-antivaccine-misinformation-and-pseudoscience/

"It is inarguable that modern medicine uses too much antibiotics, but that overuse does not mean that antibiotics don’t save lives or that we can do without them."

30 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Do they ever speak out against the senseless killings in the Iraq War for power and profit? - Nope.

Huh? What on earth does Iraq have to do with anything, are you aware of what the purpose of these skeptical organizations is?   "The JREF's mission includes educating the public and the media on the dangers of accepting unproven claims, and to support research into paranormal claims in controlled scientific experimental conditions."  Is there something paranormal about the Iraq war you want them to look at and be skeptical of? 

How does this 'hypocrisy' criticism not apply to you and everyone, why aren't you railing at the hypocrisy shown here daily by people posting about such relatively minor issues such as pseudo-skeptics and what Christ means, when has anyone here commented on the vast number of people dying of heart disease and cancer, opiate addiction, potential nuclear war, etc?

31 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

So, what does it say about them then if they have no problem with lies and evil plots that result in the death of millions, yet have a big problem with the death of a few if alternative medicine is involved?

It says they have areas of interest and expertise, just like everyone.  "No problem with lies and evil plots" are your words, but feel free to provide those missing quotes from skeptic leaders; silence does not mean that you get to assume they take any ol' position you want them to.  Why would you be looking for statements on the Gulf of Tonkin incident from scientists and doctors?

42 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

They can't and won't, because they are uncomfortable challenging the establishment.

You know this how?  What government lie that didn't become 'official' is being overlooked?  Are you sure it's not a problem with the evidence for 'the government lie that didn't become official' rather than your assumptions concerning thousands of people's psychology?

[XenoFish]

Hey aquila did you every create and fire the spirit sigil? I'm curious if you tested it out in real time.