Why science is the evil of which the priests warned

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistem … _anarchism

Understanding is the only means of what is true or false. Information simply “is” What it “is”, is a matter of understanding. If it’s true, is a matter of understanding what it “is”. This is not a matter of rhetoric. I think you need to look deeper into the matter.

It does not matter how many times you say a falsehood: it does not get more true by repeating it.

Information is the whole process, whereas understanding is merely a part of it. You do not need to know or to understand the informations you give. For example: I have got Information about you, but you do not know and possibly not understand this information. Another example: trees do not know and not understand the information they give and get. Many many other examples can be given. Most living beings are without understanding but with information. And these most living beings do what is true or false, although or, better, because they are not capable of understanding, knowing, thinking - but capable of giving and getting information. They do not need to know and to understand what true or false is - they just do it (and mostly with more success than those “higher” living beings with with knowing and understanding).

You, WW III Angry, are the one who needs to look deeper into the matter.

I noticed nobody commented on my recent posts. Why is that?

Arminius, you are using a sense of the word “information” that to me loses cogency upon deep reflection of it. I don’t accept how “information is the whole process and understanding is merely a part of it”. What does that mean exactly, when information gets relayed to you and you don’t understand it? How is it information if it doesn’t inform you, but it informs me, or vice versa? The problem with this definition is the problem of human variances in capability and understanding, which is essentially a problematic - it also depends on subjective understanding of aspects of the information - in so much that we don’t really ever understand everything about any single bit of information. We simply do not have that capability.
For example, light reflected off of a pen provides us the image of a the pen in our minds- The light is information we are receiving. We are perceiving this light under our limited capabilities which only is capable of interpreting the light, or information, in a certain spectrum of the light reflecting from us. That being, we are missing much more information about the actual object the light is reflecting off. Does that light (or rather, information) really tell us much about the pen considering how we must interpret it? For us, it might be acceptable, to simply identify it as a pen. But what if it doesn’t look like a pen to us. What if it looks like a pencil, or a crayon. But it is indeed a pen. Then you proceed to make a life or death decision based on your decision that it was a pen because you were “informed” from the light that it was a pen, but you failed miserably in your interpretation of that information because you’re a stupid, lowly human being who has no idea what is going on and only can perceive things to the best of their puny little weak abilities that causes us all to die in a wasteland of hell, where there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now I jest - but I hope you can receive my point.

Now, SEP defines information this way. “The term ‘information’ in colloquial speech is currently predominantly used as an abstract mass-noun used to denote any amount of data, code or text that is stored, sent, received or manipulated in any medium.” plato.stanford.edu/entries/information/

Now there was something I assure you was brilliant on information that I read years ago - but it is now lost on me, that would back up in a very eloquent and cogent way, the ontological nature of the concept of information, how it is used broadly, in a manner defined rather well by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I can’t quite remember who was involved. But as you can read in the link - information is much more than what you described, and of course there is philosophy about the nature of information that is in contention. Of course, this is the nature of philosophy - and ironically is the nature of receiving information. Not everyone will accept or understand certain philosophies, nor will they accept or understand certain information. I will continue to think about what exactly I read about information that I do want to share, but can not remember how to find it…

Now, with that, hopefully we have a better understanding of each other.

Been away Ha, just noticed Your posts. Will try to read them, and comment.

I am an atheist who places scientific knowledge above religious belief and who thinks the scientific method the most reliable methodology for determining
objective truth. I am drawn to Feyerabend as he challenges my thinking on this even if I ultimately think him wrong. Science should not be a discipline like
religion that is dogmatic but actually the total opposite. If it has become dogmatic it is because of the scientific community rather than science itself. This
is a subtle but important distinction. The dogmatism may be because of the rise of atheism in the West and the correlation between it and science but this
is false. Since science has nothing to say about the existence of God for this is an untestable hypothesis. And it is not necessary to be an atheist in order to
be a scientist too. Now of course these two positions are not mutually incompatible but neither are they absolutely connected. Science does not have to be
dogmatic for it is fundamentally concerned with making testable hypotheses about observable phenomenon. Which has nothing at all to do with dogmatism

yes, we agree about information being the outer circle. It’s where you have parts of knowledge outside belief I find a less useful model. I went into why in the belief knowledge thread.

I suppose your image might be trying to bring in true and false, showing that some part of information is knowledge (this being considered true) and some beliefs are true.

How do we know this is the case? I can imagine making a deductive case based on certain definitions of God. But given that this would be deduction and not induction, and speculative deduction, it is a conclusion not reached via science. So unless you use methods other than science to reach knowledge, which would be an odd admission in context, this seems and out of bounds assumption on your part. Who knows what we can or will be able to test for.

Well, there is a methodological dogmatism in science. And the reasons for having that methodology are in part based on ontological ideas that have not been tested, so far.

Yes. Plants, for example, seem to understand what the words “true” and “false” mean, but, of course, they do not, because they have no nervous system. They do not need to understand what “true” and “false” mean. But they act and react as if they understood the meaning of “true” and “false”. And by the way: their actions and reactions are averagely more successful than those of the living beings with a nervous system.

naturalhistorymag.com/featur … ave-brains

Until we or whatever we make to replace ourselves, replace them with gm machines and nano-cellulose goops which we take on our spacecraft upon leaving a dead and used up planet behind ‘us’

(just to be gloomy)

Otherwise I agree.

Do you think that machines will “eat” the crust of the planet?

If it all heads toward the singularity I assume they will find a way to ‘eat’ everything.

Not if you understand science it’s not.

I do understand science. Apparently you can’t comprehend science as an instrument of power.

Knowledge is power. But to say it is an extension of religion, is not true. Power is not rooted in religion. The power of religion rests on the ignorance of others.

Science is rooted in power as an instrument and is controlled politically.

Religion is an abstraction of politics and so is science as well.

So those are your assertions, can you provide reason, elaborate on this?

It’s no big secret that the military and corporations control the flow of information or technology. Both groups do it politically through government. I am surprised that you need an elaboration on this.