Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Replace scarecrow with software engineer and we have another children's book.

This is very good, but the question here is: why do people that cannot explain the emergence of the Infinite Gravitation out of Nothing and out of Nowhere, its existence in the physical world without a force carrier; its assumptions appearing and existing before the Time; the very launching of the Time itself ... by reason unknown; the Infinite Temperature 'doing the housework' without any heat carrier ... have such huge ego without coverage. How does that happen?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Define what you mean by "explanation" bearing in mind that what is satisfactory in modern physics is largely a function of mathematical elegance and predictive success. To quote Feynman "nobody understands quantum theory". The lay W-H questions (what, why, how...) no longer have their traditional status.

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10505358_1686751188218653_6021750431396966576_n.jpg

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Define what you mean by "explanation" bearing in mind that what is satisfactory in modern physics is largely a function of mathematical elegance and predictive success.

     The formal model of physics has to be physics in the first place. When you have a physical equation you have to have equal physical dimensions on both sides of the equation. Thus for example if you have Space.Time on the right side of the Equation of the Big Bang 'theory', and you have Nothing.Out-of-Nowhere on the left side, it comes out that Nothing times Out-of-Nowhere has physical dimensions cubic meters times seconds (not to mention that there is some Infinite Gravitational field there as well). Can you explain which exactly of the two dimensions - cu. and sec - is describing the Gravity? The inability to explain this 'phenomenon' is called inconsistency of the theory ... as physics.
     I am not going to comment the inconsistency of the Big Bang 'theory' as math logic and as formal model, respectively.
     The math equations are equations, but when they are formal representation of physical processes and events, perhaps there should stay some physics behind them. Without the physics the equations become something else - they are not formal representation of a physical process any more.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

I am not going to comment the inconsistency of the Big Bang 'theory' as math logic and as formal model, respectively.

That's the whole point ! "Consistency" is now confined to the mathematical models employed by modern science with its counter-intuitive concepts like "wave-particle duality" and "non-locality". Lay "intuition" about "causality" which we apply to our own everyday experience was suspended circa 19o5 with Einstein. Brian Cox's recent book on "The Quantum Universe" was subtitled "Whatever Can Happen, Does Happen" - the can being specified by the multiple solutions to equations.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Classic example of "I don't understand it. Let me tell you why it's wrong." Rolling Eyes

How much do you understand about teleporting alien/ILF/god-thingies compared to how much scientists can explain about the structure and behavior of the universe? Not much, considering how much explaining you've done about it.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

"Consistency" is now confined to the mathematical models employed by modern science with its counter-intuitive concepts like "wave-particle duality" and "non-locality".

I didn't have in mind here the mind-blowing claims of the quantum mechanics that a photon can be both here and on the other side of the Universe at one and the same time. I don't argue that the Big Bang could have been both here and on the other side of the Universe, for 'the theory' so and so claims that it has been everywhere - it claims that it is omnipresent ... and omnipotent, as it was already seen, and it needs only the attribute of omniscience to start presenting itself as God Himself. Actually the omniscience is implicitly assigned to Science here, so that the suggestion is that the Big Bang 'theory' & Science are actually the natural substitution and explanation of God.

fresco wrote:

Lay "intuition" about "causality" which we apply to our own everyday experience was suspended circa 19o5 with Einstein.

Well, Einstein is very delicate theme. 1. He is the first scientific PR on the mass media, the first scientific 'movie star' and creates the impression that all the physicists and mathematicians before him were absolute zero and he is the first genius ever born ... and still the best. 2. He uses archaic terms and concepts, most of which have not been subsequently accepted, or have been clarified and significantly modified by the scientific community with the years, which makes much of his presentations hard to comprehend. 3. So and you you are quoting frivolously Einstein, why don't you tell us, the simple mortal, will a Ceasium clock on an asteroid show different time in comparison to a Caesium clock on Everest ... just because one of the clocks is closer to an astronomy object with greater mass. Where and whether Time will go faster ... as the theory of the general relativity is trying to claim?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Okay. So you want to evoke the (religious) catch-all clause that everything..."science", "intelligence" etc etc....are in the gift of "a creative agency". That's an infinite regress no matter how you want to dress it up and has zero explanatory power. Your comments about Einstein are of course irrelevant because I did not need to mention him by name. He is merely one eminent figure in the paradigmatic shifting of what we call "knowledge". The epistemological erosion of the term "causality" actually began with David Hume in the early 18th century, whereas its empirical counterparts were 2oth. century. If Einstein per se has particular significance at all it was his rejection of a universal reference frame ...an absolutist concept which all quasi-religious systems like yours require as axiomatic.

The problem, as FBM has underscored, is that not only is there no consensus amongst believers about the nature of "first movers" and hence the arbitrary nature of "evidence", but your own ad hoc conjecture does not even have the attributes of "social control" or "tribal cohesion" which are major functions of established religions.

I could suggest an escape plan from your current intellectual no man's land. Perhaps, if you familiarized yourself with second order cybernetics (Von Foerster) you might understand the option of accepting either an open set of nested systems, or (like Bernard Scott) closing the set at "a deity level". But although such a move might put a more "respectable" gloss on your ramblings you might not appreciate that the need for "closure" is a psychological one stemming from our "fear of the void" or " dread of our own potential insignificance".

1 Reply

@Herald,

BTW If you are merely moaning about the gaps in paradigms that's merely a reflection of our human pre-occupation with control and the fact that it is always limited. Hence the need for a " super controller" to fill the gaps.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

That's an infinite regress no matter how you want to dress it up and has zero explanatory power.

I at least am trying to have some 'explanatory power', for you don't have any of the kind at all. What is your 'explanatory power' in terms of the possibility for the existence of the photon at two different places in the Universe simultaneously at one and the same time? What is that supposed to mean?

fresco wrote:

Your comments about Einstein are of course irrelevant because I did not need to mention him by name.

Calm down - clear sky, be careful not to push down the statue of the pharaoh. You may talk whatever you like on your positions of Scientism, but you don't have the vaguest idea of whether a Caesium clock will read different times on an asteroid & on Everest - not the vaguest one, for you don't understand five nines of the general relativity theory in the first place. You believe in it just because it is said by the pharaoh. ... What about the quantum mechanics - how much of it do you actually understand? What can you say about the dual existence of the photon at two different places simultaneously at one and the same time ... and what is Time supposed to mean in that and in the other cases (during 'the period right before launching' the Big Bang, for example)?
If you are curious to know, one of the plausible explanations for the dual existence of the photon at two different places simultaneously at one and the same time is exactly the presence of intelligence in the Universe (no matter whether in the form of God or as string theory). One of the existences is the physical existence of the photon in the physical reality, and the other 'existence' is its representation - in the understanding of the Universe about itself. Something like an image in the mirror - you have your own existence in the physical world in front of the mirror, and the 'understanding of the reflection' about your representation in the 'world behind the mirror'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Your argument is easily inverted. "Non-locality" could be interpreted as similar to that mode of cognition (intelligence) exemplified by our experience of transcending time and space in our "minds".(Reference F. David Peat). But that cognitive ability is not an explanation of non-locality in physics. It is not "evidence" of a holistic consciousness. It is merely a palliative analogy for our unease at counter-intuitive empirical findings. Or as Peat suggests, non-locality may be merely a natural common property of what we call "minds" and some "physical entities".
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

Don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to the general concept of "cosmic consciousness". It's very attractive for "insulation against the void" but its "ineffability" by definition excludes it from meaningful description or discussion.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

"Non-locality" could be interpreted as similar to that mode of cognition (intelligence) exemplified by our experience of transcending time and space in our "minds".(Reference F. David Peat).

Why don't you forget for a while about that references, and give your own definition of Space and Time?

fresco wrote:

But that cognitive ability is not an explanation of non-locality in physics.

... and where is your proof of all that. Where is your proof that the knoweledge representation cannot be used as explanation of duplicating information and structures ... when all of our own knowledge is comprising more or less exactly that.

fresco wrote:

It is not "evidence" of a holistic consciousness.

I didn't say exactly that. I didn't say that it is ' "evidence" of a holistic consciousness' - I said that it may be a plausible explanation of the observations. 'Maybe' and 'plausible explanation' do not suggest in any way 'is an evidence of'.

fresco wrote:

It is merely a palliative analogy for our unease at counter-intuitive empirical findings.

... and the truth of the matter is that you neither have any plausible explanation of the dual existence of the photon in QMs - both here and on the other side of the Universe at one and the same time - nor you have any convincing definition of Time itself ... and Launching of Time.

fresco wrote:

Or as Peat suggests, non-locality may be merely a natural common property of what we call "minds" and some "physical entities".

... and who/what is the subject/ material carrier/owner/'physical entity' of that 'minds' in your view?

fresco wrote:

Don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to the general concept of "cosmic consciousness".

To 'oppose' here means to prove that it does not exist at present, if has never existed in the past and that all the structuring of the chemical elements and of the particles and of the macro-cosmos as we know it is done on 'auto-pilot' at random, somehow without any source of information, without any source of regulations, without any source of control ... it is just happening 'on auto-pilot' and as a result of genuinely random processes. Honestly speaking, I don't see you even start proving anything of the kind.

fresco wrote:

... "ineffability" by definition excludes it from meaningful description or discussion.

How convenient, but unfortunately when someone claims something, it has to be proved afterwards. Where is your proof that the Big Bang for example and its Gaps (Time; launching of any existence; appearance of Infinite Gravitation without causality) cannot be expressed with the present day means of the math logic, formal models, and other tools of knowledge representation? ... and are not subject to knowledge acquisition in the general case?
If you can't prove that your claim remains just dust, thrown at random into the air and blown off by the winds into the nonentity ... as is the rest of the Big Bang 'theory' BTW.

1 Reply

@Herald,

If you can't work out that I am making no "claims" other than about common psychological needs, whereas you are indulging in epistemological fantasies then you are are doomed to continue your intellectual isolation. Your exposition reveals that you haven't got a clue about the extensive analytical literature on "logic" or "explanation" already undertaken.
You seem to think that "scientism" is unconditionally accepted by a fictitious breed of "dogmatic scientists" or lay camp followers, who are impervious to questioning scientific knowledge. That is statistically false...it is a straw man...a convenient projection of your fantasies. There have been several celebrated scientists, including Heisenberg, who have maintained their religious beliefs.
Most fantasists have abandoned negotiation and tend to use forums like this as a preacher's soapbox. It is part of the price the rest of us have to pay for the development of modern communications based on the scientific knowledge you denigrate.

2 Replies

Herod has a perfect score at 5/5:

Quote:

The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism

Posted on 17 March 2010 by John Cook
...
Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won't admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research 'junk science'.
Cherry picking
This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a 'threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy'.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

you are are doomed to continue your intellectual isolation.

I am ... am am am am ... not 'doomed to continue anything', sooner you are doomed to lose yourself irreversibly into your mania to use promiscuously pseudo-scientific terms, fake statements of the scientism, and fuzzy logic.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

I am ... am am am am ... not 'doomed to continue anything', sooner you are doomed to lose yourself irreversibly into your mania to use promiscuously pseudo-scientific terms, fake statements of the scientism, and fuzzy logic.

Speaking of promiscuously pseud0-scientific terms, fake statements and fuzzy logic...

Herald wrote:

... my personal are God or some meta-intelligence (string theory) or s.th.; 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter....

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/rofl2.gif

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Speaking of promiscuously pseud0-scientific terms, fake statements and fuzzy logic...

The one-way communication without a feedback is also an indication of arrogance ... and scientism.

1 Reply

@Herald,

It's one-way communication between your own ears that comes up with such a hodge-podge of self-contradictory, pretentious, self-important BS. Wake up and smell the coffee. It's a bullshit idea.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/bitchslap.gif

1 Reply

@FBM,

There's a definite PhD waiting for somebody who writes a thesis on 'Word Magic on 21st Century Forums'. Internet preachers are quite happy with an audience of one because it gives them a chance to reinforce their mantras through repetition of "The Words". (In the beginning was the word etc.....).

1 Reply

Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know