The Deadly Science

Our existence is a subjective existence. All of us have some background or a weltanschauung through which we interpret the world. Choosing to be objective is a subjective choice. Being objective is the willingness to accept contrary views that might seem bothersome and eventually make them your own subjective views. But people put their own values on things and views, come up with their own predictions about how they will effect the future, and even on the idea of being objective itself. If the choice to be objective is going to mentally and physically damage someone and endanger the person’s life, because for whatever reason they cannot digest certain views, is not the rational thing to do, to stay healthy, to stay happy and to live longer, to drop the choice to be objective? You must protect yourself from the iniquitous doctrines of vipers and protect your own soul, or else as you find yourself decaying, you might want to destroy the world.

Some people consciously or subconsciously want to destroy science because it constricts the field of beliefs we are “allowed” to hold. With the scientific method applied to all fields of human knowledge, everywhere you look certain beliefs are deemed heretical. Philosophy might be able to boil down arguments to assumptions that can be rejected, because they can’t be proven, but these days many are seen as pretentious quacks if they don’t at least accept much of the current scientific paradigmatic consensus.

Science has a materialistic bias. It is a great destroyer of worlds. It is the great declarer of meaningless. It is the great nihilater in many ways. It throws people into the void and is very cold. Our science leads to death, though it may give the illusion that it leads to life, a long life of nothingness, worthlessness. You know you have real science when it sounds dismal, cold and non-compassionate like economics seems to be. At the bottom, substructure, everything has costs and if costs are ignored things eventually fall due to their weak foundations. And thus as the evolutionist get worked into a fenzy over creationists, the economists get worked into a frenzy of a new breed of creationists, the economic creationist. Morality is the foundation of this creationist just like the others.

Let the lovers of science scoff at them both and call them both heretical and push them into the ground and step all over them and steal their children, destroy their traditons, and set up a new alter, new idols, and a new brand of priests, the dark priests of entropy with the specialized knowledge of the workings of the universe.

So, what can we do? It’s all nice and find if you have no problem accepting all of this, but some people are just physically unable or at least it may take a long time until they can. Is it time for medication to alter the brain chemistry of the masses of these type of people? shall we call them abnormal and give a name to their psychological problem? we can’t kill them because we need them for our purposes of creating the ideal society. Iillimitable progress. March march march my peoples. What? you don’t accept? I’m afraid that you are just a bit outdated sir. I don’t care if you think these things already happened numerous times over again throughout history. History is old news. Throw it to the flames.

You are getting very weary. Ah, I can’t wait until every last one of you is subdued or gone forevermore. That would be the most wonderful, final solution to all our problems.

Sleep now

Silence…

[-X

Science: the collective use and organization of repetitious and anticipated empirical tools, forces and laws in the world to secure our existence in a indifferent, dangerous, and meaningless universe.

If it weren’t for science, you’d still be eating raw fish and watching your relatives die from a common cold.

I have some issues with this position. First, I do not accept dualism and as such have a problem with your claiming everything as subjective in some way. Also, you have implied that materialism and science are cold and empty, but I would like to hear you back that claim up more clearly if possible.

If we accept materialism, then those feelings of being threatened by the scientific view ultimately can be reduced to material causes, and we may be able to alter these by way of medication for the benefit of the high priests of science if we want to go that way.

Because of the ultimate physicality of our thoughts and feelings, for many people accepting what science calls for is physically destructive. It could very well be in their favor to reject science for them to continue to live. It’s more than a matter of holding onto illusions. This is a life and death issue. Why value the truth of science if it’s going to endanger you?

I wrote down this bit of thoughts because I noticed that there was a strong current of anti-science in 20th century philosophy and also in religion. I also noticed some similarities between myself and Rousseau.

I was also thinking about these quotes…

“They that deny God destroy man’s nobility: for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and, if he be not kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.” - Francis Bacon

"The sheer moral, emotional and intellectual emptiness of the universe as seen by the Darwinian bigots is enough to make mere humans (as opposed to scientific high priests), and especially young ones, despair, and wonder what is the point of going on with existence in a world which is hard enough to endure even without the Darwinian nightmare. " - Paul Johnson

“The will to truth requires a critique-let us thus define our own task-the value of truth must for once be experimentally called into question.” - Nietszche

Even if that is so, maybe I thinking more about the anti-spiritual nature of science and the inherent bigotry in its very method. The scientists are intolerant of all worldviews that do not conform to how they say the universe works.

The advance of science has also led to overpopulation, the destruction of the environment, advanced weaponry and all the uncertainties that go along with the threat of being destroyed by man or nature.

Is this spiritually dead world , a world of beasts, rather than human beings worth living in? I don’t think it is for most, including the religious, feminists, primitives, many non-westerners, and proletarian masses across the globe.

Our ultimate fate is destruction eitther by ourselves, nature, the sun, or the entropic decay of the universe.

Have we not committed a grave error by trying “to seek of the knowledge”?

I’m a soulless zombie because I don’t sit in a pew, well ok.

I never said you had to sit in a pew.

I am a central observer in this universe. I can only truely ever know my ownself. We can never be certain of our intersubjective communication. When one speaks to me, I interpret his words through my own thought forms or patterns and vice versa.

It is the same with the information that comes to our senses from what we believe to be other than us. This outside world can be questioned and doubted. I can take on different attitudes and view it differently. It not so closed off and materially constraining as the materialists claim. There is an area of free play. Scientific materialists have spread the properties of lifeless dull matter to emprison the spirit of mankind with their “objectivity.”

They fail to realize their assumptions are subjective and can only be subjective. They can never become an all seeing eye. Their willingness to be objective is a subjective choose.

Jesus doesn’t want Sunday attendance, he only asks you believe. [church choir] YOU can save the world from evil electronic devices and scientists who prey upon children’s heart strings.

But really, nobody is forcing you to be an Atheist so don’t pretend like the population is collapsing and Darwin of the Dead is an inevitable doom.

the world is a vanpire!

-smashing pumpins! :smiley:

… get to know the goddamn vanpire, and you are more likely (but never garanteed) to calculate his next move and be ready for him.

Ignore the vanpire, well, he just might suck your blood.

Illusions or beliefs are ok, just don’t get too wacked out by them, remember materialism, b/c it is the only thing we can measure.

Okay, solipsism. I have no response, you’re right, I’m right… let’s go home?

Your deeming matter lifeless and dull does not make it so for me, remember you posited a relativist position. This statement also implies a disdain for objectivity but I see no inherent badness in material (nor could you suggest goodness, I grant you).

Perhaps this is so, but they are useful at least. I do not see how any human could ever become an all-seeing eye, nor do I see how an all-seeing eye who does not actively take part in my life would be of any use to me. If I cannot see it and it does not interact with me, should I posit its existence?

[quote=“Nothingness”]
Our existence is a subjective existence.

[quote]

   Life is subjective. But is due to our instinctual  need to survive. Impartiality or objective view is for philosophers.
    The rest of us are too hungry. 
    But all our brains without any control pick and choose which stimuli is recieved and made real.

Here I think you are mistaking a scientist’s personal prejudices as a proof indicating that his method is not sufficient and credible. Scientists, unlike dogmatists, despite their own personal beliefs, use a method which is homogeneous and universal…the scientific method is the scientific method…even if professor Joe is a dickhead and hates his wife.

On the other hand, dogmatists themselves don’t even speak the same language or use the same method, much less agree on anything. Personal prejudices or not…you cannot depend on them to provide any sufficient proof for anything.

Are you simply upset because scientists are outraged at the fact that religion is still being taught in schools, for example? Well fuckin a. I’d be pissed too if I had any authority. When professor Joe calls pastor John an ignorant asshole…he’s most likely right. Are you angry at Joe for that?

Slippery-slope. Its politics man. Politics fuck everything up, not science.

Well hell yeah! Stop pouting and give your balls a good tug. Do like me. I’m licensed to kill, by God. If I’m not licensed to kill by God, what have I lost? A life in heaven? Ohhhhhhh no. Don’t even try it. If God exists, he knows I’m right.

Yeah, so?

Only if that “seeking of knowledge” is a philosophical pursuit. If it is scientific, we might stand a chance.

And we’d have to tolerate imperfect bacon sandwiches. But, no more! Thanks to the glorious altar of science, we now have a recipe for the ‘perfect bacon butty’.

Good old scientists. The world might be grossly impoverished, the ice caps melting, the air becoming increasingly unbreathable but at least as we’re dissolving into pools of amino acids, screeching and wailing, we’ll have scientists telling us our sandwiches are perfect…

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west … 538643.stm

Somehow, I don’t join detrop in his love for ‘scientific progress’.

SIATD, I agree that science has not saved the world yet, but how can you deny progress, this very forum exists because of scientific progress. Humans do live longer, is that not progress? Results tend to reflect our understanding, more progress could yield greater results. If there is any hope of avoiding the future you have described, it is with science… or with a well-made bacon butty. So yes… bacon is progress, don’t knock it 'til you try it!

Only if one believes in science. If one doesn’t, one doesn’t conceive of engineering as scientific. I have no problem with engineering.

No. It is a typically scientific argument that length of life is somehow of particular significance. Reducing humans to numbers.

And here we see the macrocosmic problem of the fallacy of induction. Not only can science somehow make the past and the future resemble, it is the only means for us to achieve anything in the future.

It’s no different to religious fundamentalism. All encompassing. Totalitarian. Pick your word.

The authority on cooking is a chef, not a scientist. This is exactly my point - in trying to become the authority on matters of human knowledge (i.e. to literally replace God), science violates its own methods, aims and principles. It’s a classic deconstruction, if you’re into that sort of logic.

Now, I’m not attacking you for arguing this, because it isn’t your argument. It is a common argument that I’ve heard literally thousands of times in my life. I just don’t believe it.

Okay, I know I should shut up because you’ve just handed me my ass, but this is superbly reasoned. I suppose people don’t beat me up enough, this’ll give me a whole world to think about. Cheers!

Thank you. This is the somewhat abbreviated and moderate form of an argument I’ve been having on ILP for at least two years.

You’re welcome.