What is Pseudoscience?

Perhaps there was an agricultural purpose, maybe it was social status, maybe it was pure vanity.

Everything has a time and a purpose. The purpose is not always evident or justified. Many wars seem to have no real purpose.

People build walls out of fear rather than bridges out of trust.

People build towers into the sky seeking divinity.

People build families that will outlive their own legacies.

Every creature has the survival instinct though some may disregard its natural pull.

Some have it strong enough to leave behind the remnants of their relentless search for endless life.

Humans built the pyramids and their purpose was manyfold.

These humans are now long gone but their monuments to time still stand.

This is the best we can hope for is remembrance.

Reverence to stones and their energies, landmarks that demonstrate their power as a people, functional agricultural edifices, or a place to go if there is a large flood perhaps?

Maybe it functions as an all of the above, a place of resonance and spirituality, a place to transcended this world into another sphere of existence. A time capsule...

Or maybe is it just a bunch of rocks that look nice, merely an massive artistic expression of early humanity, ultimately that is all it may truly be.

Flights of fancy...

When you build a vast and substantial category of truths that are based solely upon rigorous mathematical and scientific method, where exactly do you place that faith in God and how much weight to do place on it?

Many scientists also feel fear when they break a mirror or walk under a ladder.

But how much do they fret about it versus someone who has relatively no scientific method at all? Many people are just sloppy thinkers.

You seem to think that this faith in God by maybe a few scientists is all encompassing in the mind of a person who spends their life trying to find certainty over blind faith.

Some scientists also have no ethics, now let me guess which those might be?

My bet is it is not a very strong faith and if it is a strong and avid belief then there is usually a mental disorder that accompanies this faith. Multiple personalities, Sybil and an overbearing guilt ridden parent who drilled religion in at a young age...

Humans have varying degrees of protective mechanisms to perceive and identify indoctrination.

May be you are an example of this. 😉

My questions were simple.

Applying semantically designed detractions, in order to evade such...
Only furthers the obviate.

You classify 'that which you cannot measure, or that which your narrative leans untoward, as'

pseudo
135 Khemetian pyramids.
252 chinese pyramids
144 (144,000 Biblical honoraries (Elect)) European pyramids
135 American (Nrth & South) Pyramids
Let's delve into Russia...


Digitize those numbers.

9.

9

9

Bloody deep rabbitholes - I miss Tesla - He was Wide awake.

Have an awesome forever.

My wonderment seems to dissipate after too many outlandish theories of why people who were bored piled rocks into conical shapes.

They were the children of stone age peoples who had nothing more to do than stare out at the moving stars in the sky and pile rocks to try measure and make sense out of them.

Isn't philosophy a pseudoscience too?

Life is elusive so we make stuff up to explain it.

The sun is pulled across the sky by a giant tortoise...

Tesla was great indeed...

I like you, Cobbler.

Have an awesome afternoon!
Mark...

This is a complete misunderstanding of science. Science is not competing with any philosophy. Science is not looking for "truths" in the way that religion looks for truths. Science is based solely on what is objectively testable by experiment and observation.

There are lots of truths that can't be tested by objective experiment. Do you believe in human rights? Do you believe that slavery is immoral? Do you believe that trans women are women? None of these things can be tested by experiment. All of them are true because they are true.

God can not be tested by objective experiment, any more than human rights or concepts of right and wrong.

These questions are fundamental to the human experience. They have absolutely nothing to do with science.

Human rights are social of which we are all a vital part of. God is theological which to most doesn't mean a great deal.

Unless you have been so indoctrinated that you place higher value into theology, usually out of fear and self loathing... This creates a social menace.

Human rights concern us all, God on the other hand is something inconsequential.

Some use God to prove their superiority over others while others use God to find humility.

Unless you believe God is throwing lightning bolts at people he hates, God is irrelevant...

But how you care for others is relevant and has a great effect and outcome on life. The results of social safety net is statistically provable.

How scientific is prayer?

How scientific is feeding the hungry and providing hospitals for the sick?

"Thinking more highly than he ought..."

That kind of says it all.

You too buddy!

Martin Luther King was a man of Truth and a man of God. He wasn't a man of science.

That is an allegory two parallel thoughts that are merged.

It is condescencio, a figure of speech relating God to human suffrage.

But does God really help?

Or is the responsibility really our own to care for others?

Martin Luther King was a preacher, not a scientist. And look how God helped him...

I am not sure what your point in all of this is.

Can you desire freedom from chains and not require God's help? Yes, but desperate people often turn to God out of hopelessness.

If your slave masters are religious, maybe using religion to appeal to their better nature is one approach.

A just God does not enslave, but libertates.

But some have made and evil God in their own likeness.

This evil God becomes their motivator...

Does that make their God any more or less real?

Are you saying that Martin Luther King, who was an ordained baptist minister who called himself a "man of God" was lying?

Martin Luther King had a deep and sincere belief and God, and he often said that his faith in God motivated him.

I found this quote which I agree with.. Martin Luther King made the same point that I am making on this thread.

Martin may well have been truthful in his words.
This doesn't mean - His words were true.

Have a magnificent everything.

Are you here to belittle a black man and his faith?

A black man who was suffering from public humiliation and eventually he was murdered by prejudice and hate and maybe he turned to God out of desperation?

It is sad that he felt he had to invoke God to express his human rights and equal standing in society...

Are you actually advocating for MLK or using him as a straw man hoping he will get beat on?

Faith was better served in Martin's hands than yours...

What the Hell are you talking about, Cobbler. Martin Luther King was always a man of faith. He was a faithful Christian from the start of his ministry to his degree in divinity to the day he died.

I am defending Martin Luther King's faith. I respect Martin Luther King's faith.

Martin Luther King was not afraid of who he was, and he didn't hide anything. He spent his life serving God, talking about God, writing about God, praying to God, studying God, preaching about God. He was a Christian Minister and that was the center of his life even as he lead a national civil rights movement.

Do you really want to erase the reality of Martin Luther King and replace him with someone you invented just because you don't like who he was?

If thats all you said, I ould agree with no reservation. Testability is one of the ways to include relevant facts to sustain a theory in science. HOever, your way of assigning the blame for the anti-science crowd seems to be politically based upon your belief of everything consrvative .
Science, to b testable should be A-political cause otherwise its just another pile of conservative worldview. As far as Ive seen, mot of the anti-science crowd is comfortably vested in the conservative POVs.

You understand my point vry well, youre just trying to stuff other more worldview words into your original thread . Try to be more honest in yer rebuttals please.
The founders of the Discovery Institute , for example,are entirely Conservatively bent, and, like you said, that entire otganization is vested in evidence free "science"

As far as Global Warming goes, Cience fought a healthy battle between global warming and global COOLING, during the 1970s . Science ultimately discovered key facts that warming is the way the planet is going. The biggest argumnt now iswhat is the cause?
This really shouldnt be a political view but it is , and the biggest propnents for a non anthro cause are the Energy Industry leaders, like the KOCH brothers, hrdly liberals. (kinda like the cigarrette companies denying helth ffects of smoking, another preominantley conservative pov)

Max is a white supremacist although he desperately tries to portray himself as something else.

This is silly to the point of being humorous.

You are arguing that scientific method is conservative propaganda.

Science is a great form of measuring stuff - It works well, in some avenues - And is Crap in others'.
Religion (Fixed) Is a 'limited' version of a 'whole' that, also works well, in some quarters, and is Crap in others'.
But, when both become combined - we get 'religience'.

Nobody seems to care about 'Relgience' - Because they are trapped in their indoctrinated mindsets.

Here's a Reggae Po-eem

Aye eez wot aye eez
None a ya's gonna change dat
Eef ya no see eet my way
Ya'll juss see eet yours
An wen da end come ta ya
Ya'll neva even know
Coz, once ya eez dead
It's highly unlikely that anything you gave a toss for, whilst alive - will matter.

Have a great escapade

There are two types of science, hard established science like Physics, Chemistry and Biology and there are social sciences like Economics and Sociology.

The problem with the latter is that they deal with humans meaning there are so many variables, which is why such findings can be contradictory. Usually the sample is too small or the questions being asked are flawed, but because it's a science and the methodology has been listed these flaws can be reexamine and hopefully over time rectified.

Whether or not people will try product x after experiencing y is a lot more complicated than seeing if an iron nail oxidises and turns rusty when left out in the rain.

What really annoys me is people shifting the goalposts. There is a renowned sceptic called James Randi, he has offered a prize of US$1million to anyone who can prove something supernatural.

A group from Channel 4 decided to go for homeopathy. The tinctures used by homeopaths have been diluted so much as to mean the original herb is no longer present, yet homeopaths claim it retains a charge and that makes it effective.

As yet there is no scientific validity to those claims.

Now all went well, the team approached Randi with the procedures they would use and he signed off on it. He said that if those tests proved it's efficacy he would pay up.

Guess what it did!

The tests showed homeopathy worked, but would Randi pay up? Would he ****.

The tests were flawed, other safeguarding tests were applied and homeopathy no longer worked.

Now, if we were just talking science, fair enough, I accept scientific methodology does not stop with one test, procedures are looked at, tests are refined, I get that.

We're not talking science though, we're talking a million bucks. Randi agreed to pay out if certain tests gave a particular result, they did, he should have coughed up.

Then I realise Ranfi would never have paid up regardless of any test, there would always be some loophole or other.