And no, I'm not looking for philosophy. I'm not looking for anymore subdivisions or dissections or breaking things part to learn from it. What I'm looking for is unity. ------
No. What I'm saying is that so long as simplified thought processes that hinge on label recognition exist, people will not realize the capacity they have to critically analyze the facts of the matter in a balanced and unbiased way, and the whole practice of science has a biased view of reality, one that leans heavily towards materialism. And there's definitely NO chance for our species should we file the topic of consciousness under "pseudoscience". ------
Lol so your whole idea of science is just something to disprove religion? So you see no point in physics? Engineering? No point in discovering cures for diseases. No point in advancing computers, automobiles. No point in watching weather patterns. Wow man, I'm sorry you are against education, but this is why anti science people are funny. They have no clue what science is. So what we shouldn't experiment? Well how does your conscious question answering work? My grow journal http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-medical-marijuana-growing/1353929-mopheads-purple-closet-adventures.html
Naw man. I've already answered these questions. You're projecting at me now rather than addressing the substance of what I'm saying. So "educate" me. What is the difference between "Science" and "scientific culture"? ------
And here is another question.....why does a scientist, when viewing the reality that an atomic system and a solar system are systems that have self similarity, conclude that these similarities are "coincidental"? "A coincidence is what you have left over when you apply a bad theory." ~ P.W. Bridgman ------
A sciency explanation from a Q&A on the University of Illinois. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23806 Q: If you compare pictures of an atom and our solar system, it seems that they are both assembled the same way with the sun and nucleus being the same and the electrons and planets orbiting the same. Is this coincidence or is our solar system one big atom? Also, why does the suns gravitational pull keep us orbiting around it instead of pulling us into it? - Luke (age 36) Ohio A: Hi Luke, I don't think it's a coincidence that many atomic pictures look like solar systems. However, there is no deep connection between the two either. Rather, I think humans tend to look for patterns, and one of the first ideas physicists had when constructing a model of the atom was to base it on our solar system. We now know, however, that this beautiful idea is wrong. In reality, an atom doesn't look anything at all like the solar system. In the solar system, planets are constantly falling towards the sun, but also traveling so quickly in a sideways direction that they never actually fall into the sun. The planets are quite localized, and follow precise orbits governed by the laws of gravity. In contrast, we now know that electrons, unlike planets, are governed by quantum mechanics. They don't have exact locations or trajectories, but rather exist around the atomic nucleus in a sort of probability "cloud." If you see a drawing of an atom in which electrons are dots which orbit the nucleus, remember that this model isn't correct. It isn't a terrible model, and it's easy to understand, but it misses some hugely important physics. For example, if atoms were solar systems held together by electromagnetism instead of gravity, then radiation would rapidly cause the atoms to collapse, and the universe we know would never have formed. Hope that makes sense. You can find a lot more information about the quantum mechanical structure of the atom on this website and on the web in general. David Schmid https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyj7d6Gj6e1r556mmo1_400.gif
This still fits as as self similar relationship as the structure and motion are fundamentally the same. Sun is to nucleus as electron probability field is to planetary material (not just the planets themselves). Now there are certainly differences here. But fundamentally the structure and motion are self similar. Same with a galaxy. This particular self similarity is all based upon central structure and vortical motion. ------
Science is observation of the natural world with respect to the scientific method. Science culture is something Creationists have made up to describe people who don't believe in creationism. Sorry I didn't write 3 pages of nonsense to get my point across like you did, but I thought I'd try and take it back to a simple question answer format. My grow journal http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-medical-marijuana-growing/1353929-mopheads-purple-closet-adventures.html
Right on man, whatever floats your boat. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't believe in a god(s), just thought I'd shed a little more light on the atomic model comparison. I'll bet you can find tons of similarities between otherwise seemingly unrelated things if you're looking for them. Hell, my shit spins around a central drain every morning...coincidence?
As for your questions about similarities between atoms and solar systems. Solar systems are held together by gravitational forces, while atoms are held together by electrical forces. I don't see why them being similar disproves science and proves creationism. My grow journal http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-medical-marijuana-growing/1353929-mopheads-purple-closet-adventures.html
Have you ever noticed how the veins in our bodies look like aerial photos of mountain ranges where the water runs off. I know that has nothing to do with the discuss but since similarities were being posted I had to comment. I dont care to post in these types of discussions cause the people who think illogically will not think logically no matter how many replies you make (not referring to anyone particularly thats just how it goes in online forums). I will say this.. Science is ever changing. It evolves with our species. It only proves what it can at that time. One day it might prove there is a god(s). One day it might prove there is no god(s). I, on the other hand, will continue to experiment with the magical herb a wizard gave me, and I'll continue to hold conversations with the aliens who live in my attic.
Just to stir more shit, this picture says it pretty nicely. No one has disproved God, but no one has given credible evidence towards it either. Let me get some of that wizard magic. My grow journal http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-medical-marijuana-growing/1353929-mopheads-purple-closet-adventures.html
Your shit spins a PARTICULAR way depending upon what part of the planet you're shitting on, sir. ------
I know, reading sucks, right? I can tell... Well, I don't know anything really about Creationism other than it seems to be spearheaded by a sketchy character named Ken something or other...I forget his last name. To me, and I'll keep this as brief as humanly possible for you, The Scientific Method is a wonderful thing when performed properly. And what I mean by performed properly is that no biases are allowed, including political motivations. Scientific culture is the mixture of popular culture with the CONCLUSIONS brought out from our scientific understanding, This particular group of people are FLOODED with things EMOTIONS and BIASES. An ugly thing. ------
And here is a question for you. If evidence was presented to you, would you be able to maintain the proper state of mind in order to ask yourself if it was possible? Are you able to shed your beliefs? Are your ready to unlearn everything you think you know? That is a task too tall for many people you know. ------
Hey, that's fine man. If you want to mock my ideas here, I'll tell you that you're not the first one to do it. At least we're not burning people at the stake anymore for introducing new ways to look at reality. Reality is a canvas. It is both structure and artistry. And patterns are the basis of artistry. All a scientist does when he explains the universe is hold the canvas so that you're looking at it from an edge on viewpoint. And he says "See, there is no meaning or motivation here. So you never actually see what is on the surface of the canvas, because of the scientists material bias. ------
Listen mate IDK if you have something shoved up your booty, but I was being serious when I posted that. I didn't even read everyone's comments deeply. I was being straight forward and meaningful when I made that statement, just because other people are pissing you off doesnt mean you should take it out on everyone else. I wasn't mocking you, I was making an observation about the veins in our body looking like water run-offs on mountains, nothing more nothing less.
I'm not pissed. You followed that statement up with "I know that has nothing to do with the discuss.." when that's precisely what we were discussing. So I guess you were simply commenting on something you were not paying attention to. Thanks for the feedback. ------
You can never disprove god or provide evidence for such. For one who claims to understand what science is, i find this quite humorous... as well as that image 'evolution is a theory god is a hypothesis' as if they are combatting themes or opposing forces. Therein lies the problem with the science culture, not with the method. Making a dogma out of science is an easy escape from the great philosophical questions that fall outside of the method. I disagree with Brown that science will be replaced, i think the materialist followers will however. We will, i think, have to revert back to what science actually is and understand its limits. Science cannot tell us how things should be, it merely is a method to understand how things are. For instance, science can tell us a pandemic is spreading and will kill millions, it cannot impart the value on humans, the moral drive to do something to save the lives.