Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

Forums: Pseudo-Science, Tinfoil Hattery 101
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Why do some people, dealing with pseudo-sciences like pyrrhonism and presenting themselves as 'super-experts' in some of the most distant interpretations of the phenomenology cannot make a simple classification and enumeration of the attributes of an elementary concept ... and are definitely helpless to tell what is the greatest achievement of the present day science ... but have an ego exceeding TRES4 & Jupiter under common denominator?
Why do some people, who cannot tell two words crosswise about Time, have such great presumption? ... just because they are the worst case scenario of the scientism.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 9,926 • Replies: 234

No top replies

@Herald,

H did you possibly mean "Scientology"

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

H did you possibly mean "Scientology"

     First welcome to the forum. Second, about scientology you may be partially right, but I have in mind that part of the scientology behaviour that becomes a model for imitation to the scientism as well.

     Wiki Def: Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
     I am not sure that all the sciences should deal with collecting empirical data at any cost and no matter in contradiction with what, and to match that data to some fixed-in -advance unshakeable theories ... just because all that looks like genuine science in search of the truth. ... and to pronounce everybody who does not agree with such an approach as 'retard of seventh star magnitude' ... and to talk to him indulgently.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

First welcome to the forum

Thanks but been here for years

Otherwise H, I'd agree most emphatically. Our reasoning power is limited by our necessarily dualistic use of the language; although I'm sure creation and evolution will eventually be explained as perfectly natural phenomena

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Otherwise H, I'd agree most emphatically.

I don't have in mind the scientology - it is too subjective. Besides that the scientology is not the only scinece dealing with phenomenology.

dalehileman wrote:

Our reasoning power is limited by our necessarily dualistic use of the language

Well, yes, but the language is the communication, and with the Big Bang we have representation - the understanding of the world, the knowledge of the world ... and its prototype, the physical world itself.
The Big Bang for example claims that the Time appeared out of nowhere and out of nothing ... without even bothering to explain what Time actually is. This is not phenomenology - this is an ugly caricature of phenomenology.
In quantum mechanics, unlike the philosophy, phenomenology is the series of events after collision of high energy particles and the explanation of the snapshots from the collision. Where do you see here any Big Bang and Time? ... and the semantics of the language is our least problem, BTW.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

The Big Bang for example claims that the Time appeared out of nowhere and out of nothing ...

Yea that one leaves a whole lot of q's. It's much more logical to assume the Universe has always existed in one form or another

Quote:

... and the semantics of the language is our least problem, BTW.

H, I disagree. For instance it has God on one hand and the Universe on the other and you either believe or you don't. I maintain that there is in fact something we haven't yet described but which can be called God or not with complete assurance

It's just that our dualism insists we take one side or the other

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Yea that one leaves a whole lot of q's. It's much more logical to assume the Universe has always existed in one form or another.

Yes, the hypothesis that the Universe & Its immanent Intelligence (God or String Theory, or the Turing Machine characteristics of Time or whatever it might be there) is much more probable than to whatever appearing out of nowhere and out of nothing.

dalehileman wrote:

For instance it has God on one hand and the Universe on the other and you either believe or you don't.

It is not that simple. We have Universe on one hand ... that we don't know what it actually is; then we have Time on the other hand ... that we also don't know what it actually is; and then we have evident form of Intelligence (our own) ... that we also don't know what it actually is - we neither know how it works, nor how it has appeared, nor whether it is the first one appearing in the Universe, nor whether it is the only one existing at present ... nor even whether we are the actual owners of that Intelligence, or it is not something else (some relay torch of the universal intelligence, delivered somehow from species to species throughout the Universe at some point of development ... and destruction of the local environment, like for example exhausting the local energy resources to the event horizon of self-destruction).

1 Reply

Someone has a short memory. Debunked a long time ago: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html

Quote:

Claim CF101:

The first law of thermodynamics says matter/energy cannot come from nothing. Therefore, the universe itself could not have formed naturally. (See also CE440: Origin of everything.)
Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 21.
Response:

Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).
References:

Guth, Alan H., 1997. (see below)
Tryon, Edward P., 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.

1 Reply

Quote:

Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?

EDWARD P. TRYON

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Hunter College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10021

The author proposes a big bang model in which our Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum, in the sense of quantum field theory. The model predicts a Universe which is homogeneous, isotropic and closed, and consists equally of matter and anti-matter. All these predictions are supported by, or consistent with, present observations.

------------------

References

1. Muehlner, D., and Weiss, R., Phys. Rev., D7, 326 (1973).
2. Hegyi, D. J., Traub, W. A., and Carleton, N. P., Phys. Rev. Lett., 28, 1541 (1972).
3. Omnès, R., Phys. Rep., 3C 1 (1972).
4. Sandage, A. R., Phys. Today, 23, 34 (1970).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v246/n5433/abs/246396a0.html

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Debunked a long time ago: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html

Nothing is debunked there. All that mumbo-jumbo with negative energies (for it doesn't matter whether an energy is positive or negative - we classify it as such - it must always have some force carrier) is fable for idiots ... and relies exclusively on the circumstance that five nines of the population is physically illiterate to the extend of not understanding what it actually claims.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Believe it or not, you capacity to comprehend it is completely unrelated to its truth value. More wingnut denialism, I see.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Believe it or not, you capacity to comprehend it is completely unrelated to its truth value.

     Seriously, and what about your capacity ... of pointing at references that you don't even understand.
     Can you explain what is the physical interpretation of the 'process': to be formed naturally (from your favorite reference). If you cannot make a plausible physical interpretation of that, it should be pronounced as 'fable for idiots' as it actually is, and to be viewed as such.
     Can you explain how has the gravitational field from the same reference:
     (1) Existed (no matter whether with positive or with negative energy) before the launching of the Time;
     (2) How exactly has the Time 'been formed naturally' before its own launching;
     (3) How has 'the gravitational field' succeeded to exist (no matter whether before, or after the 'natural' launching of the Time) without a force carrier (gravitons, gravitational collapse of neutrons, or whatever)?
     (4) How does all that happen?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Are you aware of Prigogine's work on the spontaneous emergence of dynamic structures ?
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine

Are you also aware that "causality" has a questionable status in philosophy following Hume's analysis of it, and is problematic with respect to quantum physics?

Both of these issues seriously question the role of determinism in accounting for what we call "the world". The deterministic concept of a "prime mover" is an anthropomorphic and simplistic one, notwithstanding its dismissal with respect to an infinite regress.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

dalehileman wrote:

For instance it has God on one hand and the Universe on the other and you either believe or you don't.

Quote:

It is not that simple.

No, H, it certainly isn't. I merely contend that the dualistic nature of language is one impediment. For instance preventing the notion that She is the Universe and that all the activity herein is Her thinking

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Believe it or not, you capacity to comprehend it is completely unrelated to its truth value.
     Seriously, and what about your capacity ... of pointing at references that you don't even understand.
     Can you explain what is the physical interpretation of the 'process': to be formed naturally (from your favorite reference). If you cannot make a plausible physical interpretation of that, it should be pronounced as 'fable for idiots' as it actually is, and to be viewed as such.
     Can you explain how has the gravitational field from the same reference:
     (1) Existed (no matter whether with positive or with negative energy) before the launching of the Time;
     (2) How exactly has the Time 'been formed naturally' before its own launching;
     (3) How has 'the gravitational field' succeeded to exist (no matter whether before, or after the 'natural' launching of the Time) without a force carrier (gravitons, gravitational collapse of neutrons, or whatever)?
     (4) How does all that happen?

Who gives a ****? (Only you, seeing as how all that's gibberish to anyone else.) And why? (Trying to find a gap to wedge your alien/ILF/god-thingy into?)

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Only you, seeing as how all that's gibberish to anyone else. And why? Trying to find a gap to wedge your alien/ILF/god-thingy into?

'Who gives a ****?' ... of how many mistinterpretations and misrepresentations you can make on your favourite broken record: 'The Strawman of the Gaps'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

A blind man can see that you're fallaciously trying to present limitations in the current model as positive evidence that your invisible, teleporting, self-contradictory, evidence-free, hybrid alien/ILF/god-thingy. That's your logical failure. Absence of information is not evidence for anything but absence of information. It is not evidence that your fastastical, imaginary dreams are real. For that, you need observational and/or experimental data. Where's yours?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

A blind man can see that you're fallaciously trying to present limitations in the current model as positive evidence that your invisible, teleporting, self-contradictory, evidence-free, hybrid alien/ILF/god-thingy.

Definitely false, false & false.The Gaps of your strawman of the gaps, which Gaps you will not be able to specify for life are not limitations in the current model - they are absolute catastrophe to (and in rough contradiction with) what is presented as a model, for a formal model should have consistency in the first place.
This behaviour is called deliberate substitution & random permutation of the obvious, with the objective to hide the truth and to replace it with any misrepresentation ... that may go.

FBM wrote:

That's your logical failure.

Better fail on consistent logic than make infinite crap on fake logic.

FBM wrote:

Absence of information is not evidence for anything but absence of information.

Substitution & permitation of the truth are exactly what they are here: misinterpretation and misrepresentation. The inability to get knowing something with the present day methods and computation is not 'absence of information' - it is called unknowable.

FBM wrote:

It is not evidence that your fastastical, imaginary dreams are real.

They are not real, but I don't claim that at all - it is your perception of my 'understanding' - definitely false as it was already seen.
Your greatest problem is that you have bogged down, up to the ears, in psychotronic phenomenomoly and are absolutely detached from reality.

FBM wrote:

For that, you need observational and/or experimental data. Where's yours?

... and where are your data. You don't have the test box in the first place ... and the assumptions for the formal model, not to say that you don't even have a model ... and your favourite Gaps that you neither understand nor will ever by able to enumerate and specify in order to discuss them in connection with your strawman of the gaps.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Blah blah blah word salad blah blah blah. You're back to defending your alien/ILF/g0d-of-the-gaps-thingy, so where's your evidence for it?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Wretch.

1 Reply

Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know