Hello all, not a major in any aspect of science by any means, but I have a few questions based on my understanding of science. From what I understand, science is all theory, essentially a theory widely accepted with the current understanding and perception on the workings of the topic at hand, until more discoveries are made... Now, science uses formulas, equations, substitutions of values, variables... to essentially say that in all circumstances things with react as they should, as said by the formulas.. What about social interactions? Psychedelic Experiences? Sexual Encounters? Life in itself? You can't say they will all have the same responses and outcomes in the same scenarios... it just wouldn't be right. Terrence Mckenna had a bit about this, I beleive it was in his book "The Archaic Revical" or his lecture "A Psychedelic Society." How can science be accepted when it is merely the best theories we have at the current and it cannot be applied to everything?
I am honestly about to say to hell with this, and come to my own conclusion that this has beat Science by a long shot...
No, I'm merely stating Science cannot equate a formula such as "X + Y / 3.2 = (Insert Social Interaction here)"... There is no way Science can dictate a response upon each social interaction, maybe with objects, but not with imagination, opinions, the ego... etc.
I don't believe that's true. Almost everything is predictable given the right information beforehand. Hell you do this yourself in everyday social interactions. E.g. When you make a joke. You are making a prediction that since you found something humorous(either hearing it before hand or in your head), that others will as well. I don't know if it can be 100% correct and all that. I don't know if it could make VERY specific predictions. However I believe given the right information, and a group of "normal" people, I'd estimate science getting about 90-95% correct.
I think the reason you're not getting many bites is that the OP is both flawed and it sounds a little like a troll for a christian/science debate, of which we've had so many here I think most of us have stopped bothering. >>From what I understand, science is all theory, essentially a theory widely accepted with the current understanding and perception on the workings of the topic at hand, until more discoveries are made... Now, science uses formulas, equations, substitutions of values, variables... to essentially say that in all circumstances things with react as they should, as said by the formulas..>> The above is a distortion of what science is. If it were just theories without a practical, provable aspect then you wouldn't be reading this on your computer right now. Also, science never says "that in all circumstances things react as they should, as said by the formulas". In fact science is well aware that even the simplest of reactions under precise conditions sometimes don't work. I agree with the other posters here: we can predict human behaviour with a certain degree of accuracy. But, supposing we couldn't - what does it matter? It doesn't prove that science would somehow be lesser for not doing so. That we're able to understand the human mind at all and make the predictions we do is down to science and nothng else. That our knowledge is currently incomplete is neither here nor there. Personally speaking, and I know this is not the opinion of many here - McKenna knows far less than his publicity would suggest, and if we're looking for flaws and inaccuracies (about everything from physics to meditation and the human mind in general), he's your man. I missed this line somehow: >>How can science be accepted when it is merely the best theories we have at the current and it cannot be applied to everything? I think you have a slightly skewed understanding of what science is and how it sees itself. Science isn't just a set of theories, it has given us deep working understandings of many things. Nor is science a single 'it'. It's a range of various disciplines that in some cases really do provide complete knowledge of their subjects. Science will be the one providing the answer to your question about 'life itself', and it's very close now, soon we will be creating living organisms from scratch. MelT
Scientists use math to describe phenomena when appropriate. Mathematics is useful in physics so it crops up all over the place there... but it's less useful in, say, psychology. Yup, pretty much. That's why there's no theory of small talk that will tell you exactly how a conversation will go. There are simply too many variables to model it. Because thus far it offers us a more complete view of the physical world than religions ever have? Praising Jesus never put anyone on the Moon. Science isn't everything, but it's damn useful when you want to erect a skyscraper or take a transatlantic flight.
Find Terrene Mckenna's lecture about the subject, he obviously displays a better understanding and thus explanation on the subject of which I posted. I must not be able to explain it as clearly, but I'm certainly not trolling I just had a question about science, seeing as Cannabis users are very open minded usually, I decided to post here? Thx for the replies tho...
You're explaining it perfectly as a McKenna-ism, that's the unfortunate part. His lectures are usually pseudo-scientific, pseudo-religious nonsense. He's hidden behind an unwarranted veneer of 'fame' for years. MelT
I'm currently getting my masters in psychology and i can say that in the world of human interactions, science is often times used to predict behavior. You'd be surprised at the lack of variation in human responses. In other words we all don't respond in millions of different ways as it would seem like we should. When a well though out/researched hypothesis is stated and tested, behavior can be unbelievably easy to predict. When you take everything we know about the way we interact with others, responses can not only be easily predicted but easily controlled.