Physicists find evidence universe is a giant brain

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,243
29,059
Colorado
For one, "believing" in science, whatever that means, to begin with is merely deferring to authority in Bacon's method.

Newton and Einstein 'believed' in it because they formulated the theories themselves - an "average" person (e.x. one who doesn't read books) merely believes it because they were told so in K-12 or on TV, just as they'd have been believing in Catholicism had they been born in the day and age when the Church ran the media and education.

In other cases, such as in the case of insignificant people who work in some "scientific" industry or another, it may just be a case of industry bias, or ignorance of the outside world in general. (e.x. The average "scientist" isn't a Newton or Einstein, but just a workman with a fancy title; so deferring to them on an argument of authority is almost akin to defering to blindly a "priest").

Most arguments used, such as "most/many scientists" say or believe this" are also bad, dishonest, or dowright anti-intellectual - and show basic ignorance of what science is or how it works

(e.x. Science as an industry isn't "Survivor", where legitimate science can be "voted off the island" simply because it's unpopular, or doesn't fit someone's faith-based ideology, like Secular Humanism and its philosophies such as "caring for the planet", which predated any recent scientific notions about man-made global warming - it was a faith-based notion, just as "nature worship" is in many world religions and belief systems is, and Alarmists were pushing this belief on people based on faith in their religion or philosophy, long before any scientific data was used to confirm their faith-based notions.)
Do you "believe" in the computer connected to the Internet that you are using right now to communicate with me?
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Do you "believe" in the computer connected to the Internet that you are using right now to communicate with me?
I believe it's useful tool, I don't "give thanks to science for it" as though science is some entity to be worshipped - it was invented by a man, with a brain, just as men have been inventing things long before Francis Bacon or his modern system of science was ever invented.

In some cases, the modern scientific method may have only caught up to what people had invented centuries ago - such as Rome having sophisticated plumbing systems despite the lack of any centralized scientific method.

It would be interesting to see what the rates or types of innovation would have actually been had Francis Bacon's scientific method never been invented, or had science developed in a completely different way.
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Lol, did god tell you that? My Ph.D. tells me otherwise.
So you're biased toward your industry, makes perfect sense to me.

I'm sure that if you had a Ph.D. in mathematics, you'd be biased toward pure mathematics over the physical sciences as well - everyone has their preferences.

"Empericism" is just one of many methods and fields of knowledge, used for pragmatic reasons in certain industries.
 
Aug 2019
852
784
Albuquerque, NM
Do you "believe" in the computer connected to the Internet that you are using right now to communicate with me?
He always ignores that point. Brought it up a few times. We know science works based on all the technological advances, that in fact work. NO faith required for them to work, the science is sound that makes them work
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
He always ignores that point. Brought it up a few times. We know science works based on all the technological advances, that in fact work.
False, you can't prove that Bacon's scientific method is solely responsible for technological advances - computers were invented by a man with above-average intelligence, just as people have been inventing things for all of human history, when in some cases, technologies such as gun powder, napalm (aka "Greek Fire"), plumbing systems, and so forth were invented centuries before Bacon ever developed the modern scientific method, having only caught up to them much later.

Most of the work which would go into inventing a computer has little to do with "empiricism" as a whole - or the difference between science being used pragmatically, such as in inventing things, or used to learn about the universe or the cosmos as a whole..

So no, I don't have "faith in science", specifically, because of my computer, that's cargo-cultish - if anything, I'd be more inclined to credit the men or women who invented it.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,243
29,059
Colorado
I believe it's useful tool, I don't "give thanks to science for it" as though science is some entity to be worshipped - it was invented by a man, with a brain, just as men have been inventing things long before Francis Bacon or his modern system of science was ever invented.

In some cases, the modern scientific method may have only caught up to what people had invented centuries ago - such as Rome having sophisticated plumbing systems despite the lack of any centralized scientific method.

It would be interesting to see what the rates or types of innovation would have actually been had Francis Bacon's scientific method never been invented, or had science developed in a completely different way.
With all due respect you're speaking in riddles. Science is some entity to be worshipped???

Please share an example of how science could have developed in a different way.
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
With all due respect you're speaking in riddles. Science is some entity to be worshipped???

Please share an example of how science could have developed in a different way.
It could have developed toward rationalism (based on the mind) instead of empiricism (based on the body).

But this is a complicated topic that requires a bit of reading to discuss.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,243
29,059
Colorado
It could have developed toward rationalism (based on the mind) instead of empiricism (based on the body).

But this is a complicated topic that requires a bit of reading to discuss.
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.

The mind registers sense-experience.

Rationalism: a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response

Going with your point, how would science be different if it had developed toward rationalism? What do you mean?
 
Aug 2019
852
784
Albuquerque, NM
False, you can't prove that Bacon's scientific method is solely responsible for technological advances - computers were invented by a man with above-average intelligence, just as people have been inventing things for all of human history, when in some cases, technologies such as gun powder, napalm (aka "Greek Fire"), plumbing systems, and so forth were invented centuries before Bacon ever developed the modern scientific method, having only caught up to them much later.

Most of the work which would go into inventing a computer has little to do with "empiricism" as a whole - or the difference between science being used pragmatically, such as in inventing things, or used to learn about the universe or the cosmos as a whole..

So no, I don't have "faith in science", specifically, because of my computer, that's cargo-cultish - if anything, I'd be more inclined to credit the men or women who invented it.
Didn't address the issue, once again. First off, I don't give a shit about Bacon and his scientific method. What is your obession with that? You think there was no science prior to Bacon? Humans have been observing things, learning about the world, and using that knowledget to solve problems since the beginning. That is science. Whether it was formalized with a particular method used, humans were doing it long before Bacon.

And you once again didn't address the issue. Computers work because of the scientific theories discovered behind them, proving science works in discovering facts and truths about the world. 100% fact. Yell false all you want, dodge and deflect all you want ,that is 100% factual. Science works. Let's take antibiotics, it was discovered based on science, observing bacteria and seeing a compositions that can kill them. And that lead to one of the most effective treatments. God didn't go adn say "here, use these to treat disease." no, it was scientists that discovered this.

Your inability to read people's actual arguments and comprehend anything is astounding. YOu just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and dodging and deflecting, in pretty much all the threads you have posted in