5 ms·

To say 'I remember my birth' is hearsay. When we give our birth date, we are effectively lying, as we don't know, even though we were there. I believe that th

To say 'I remember my birth' is hearsay. When we give our birth date, we are effectively lying, as we don't know, even though we were there. I believe that there is a past that was laid down. But I don't think we know it. We are told and taught is what is most expedient in order for our behaviour to be managed. (Take a look at Star forts to see what I mean - you weren't taught about this global build style at school.) As we don't experience evolution, why should we believe it is true? We can experience selection of the best fruit etc, choosing and breeding the best tomatoes - but this is not evolution. This is just selective breeding. In the same way as I think history is whatever is expedient, I think the same about science (and religion). I personally believe that the scientific method is a fantastic way to better understand the world. But it has to be done personally. The problem is that science does not use the scientific method, regardless of how much it pays lip service to it. Science relies on trust and scientists have faith that all the steps are there - its just they were taken by someone else. But the steps are not there, and no one is checking anything. These are mistaken assumptions, or stories and no one seems to care or notice. If you want an example of how little we know in science, try and make water out of the 2 gases, in controlled conditions. I will pre-empt any further questions on this, until you have looked online, or put up an experiment of your own. There are lots of loud pops, but what I see is water already in the air condensating against the glass. If you find a good example of water being created - and we should be able to create buckets of the stuff right? - please run it past me and see if I agree. I promise to be fair, and explain my reasoning if I disagree. My view is that we live in a fabricated reality, where we have created types and classifications - but that these are ideas in our own minds. We are not describing reality, we are describing our classifications. We are lost in our stories.

tsimionescu 6y ago
This is quite fascinating. I've never before met someone who almost entirely discards knowledge they didn't experience themselves. I wonder to what extent you trust that I am a human being living somewhere else on the globe :) . Regarding the synthesis of water, I have seen that experiment done first hand when I was in school, and I have seen a larger quantity of droplets of water when it was done than in other similar experiments where two gasses were burned, so I am well convinced. Synthesising buckets of water would be a much more complicated trick though, especially if you expect to see it happen all at once, because the reaction is 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O, so you need to react 1kg of hydrogen with 0.5kg of oxygen to get 1kg of water vapour, without blowing your whole house up - not an easy feat. Going a safer route, creating a process that reacts small quantities over a long time is also difficult, especially if you want to make a convincing looking apparatus. An easier route if you want to convince yourself of this reaction, I still suggest the best way is to perform the experiment with hydrogen and oxygen, and then to perform similar experiments with other gasses. This way, you could compare the amount of vapour that condenses after burning hydrogen (you should see a lot) vs burning sulphur (you'll see very little or none). > My view is that we live in a fabricated reality, where we have created types and classifications - but that these are ideas in our own minds. We are not describing reality, we are describing our classifications. We are lost in our stories. The reason why I don't think your argument holds water, at least for most science, is that we can see the products of science working every day, even if we don't personally study them from first principles. I can see that my computer works, so I am convinced that all of the science involved in its creation is true - electricity, materials science, possibly some aspects of quantum mechanics, general relativity for my GPS clock, the speed of light when looking at the Latency of satellite communications, the chemistry of silicone which they use in the manufacturing process and others. I look at the plastic industry and pigment industry and junk food and medicine, and I know that chemistry is true. I look at how we successfully treat and prevent microbial diseases, or selectively breed plants and animals, and I know that genetics is true. Do I need to deeply understand each of these phenomena? Not really, and I don't even need to trust the scientists. All I need is to trust that the hundreds of thousands of engineers who apply these processes every day are not lying about how they make it work. I don't need to trust them that it works, that I can see for myself.
- feralimal 6y ago
  I'm glad it is fascinating. You should think on this, and realise how much trust and faith you are putting into the stories you are told, and how much or how little it coheres with what is the gold standard - your personal experience. Yes - at school, I think you were convinced I think by water condensating and by the loud pop (as was I). This is almost the definition of a magic trick! You are told it explains something, but of course at that age, you wouldn't have looked at the experiment with a critical or knowledgeable eye. The evidence that we were shown as kids should not be considered rigorous or acceptable in science - mixing invisible gases in an open container that allows air in, is not rigorous. Personally I have not seen any examples of this experiment that are undertaken in what I deem to be an acceptable scientific manner. I too believe that computers work. :) I don't dispute that we are able to use things to create some excellent technology. What I dispute that we know what we're doing. What I'm saying is that we do not get to see or understand the first principles. We do not see them in almost any of the science we are presented when we are taught at school. What we are given are claims and explanations that are not supported by the evidence. We are put in a position where we are forced to trust. It seems we require an explanation, so much so that we will latch on to any story rather than sit uncomfortably with one or 2 open-ended hypotheses. The heart of the issue, we are not given evidence to know, we are given a claim to believe. I can know I am resting on a table. I can know that if I drop my pen it will fall on the table. There is no debate to be had. There is a clear path to experience, or empiricism. Empiricism is purported to be the basis of science, but some very basic ideas are not actually possible to experience it seems. In the original article here, evolution is the implied explanation. But, we have no means to test or confirm the truth or not. We cannot see evolution occurring. (Feel free to point me to an article or something that you think shows this.) Yet we are all taught it as if it was true! If it is as I say, what we are presented with is an unfalsifiable theory which is without evidence. This is to say it is based on trust and faith. This is religious thinking, and is no different to a religion. Finally, are you aware of the replication crisis in science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis and https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 "According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments." There should be 100% replicability, not 30%. Science shouldn't be about playing the odds in a casino. And as to the science we do, funding is probably the most serious issue. All science funding comes from the government, the military and corporations. These 3 entities form our governance structure. This is to say they have vested interests in ensuring that only certain areas are looked into, the point being is that science is not an independent field of enquiry - it is about what is expedient to the governance structure.

tsimionescu 6y ago

This is quite fascinating. I've never before met someone who almost entirely discards knowledge they didn't experience themselves. I wonder to what extent you trust that I am a human being living somewhere else on the globe :) . Regarding the synthesis of water, I have seen that experiment done first hand when I was in school, and I have seen a larger quantity of droplets of water when it was done than in other similar experiments where two gasses were burned, so I am well convinced. Synthesising buckets of water would be a much more complicated trick though, especially if you expect to see it happen all at once, because the reaction is 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O, so you need to react 1kg of hydrogen with 0.5kg of oxygen to get 1kg of water vapour, without blowing your whole house up - not an easy feat. Going a safer route, creating a process that reacts small quantities over a long time is also difficult, especially if you want to make a convincing looking apparatus. An easier route if you want to convince yourself of this reaction, I still suggest the best way is to perform the experiment with hydrogen and oxygen, and then to perform similar experiments with other gasses. This way, you could compare the amount of vapour that condenses after burning hydrogen (you should see a lot) vs burning sulphur (you'll see very little or none). > My view is that we live in a fabricated reality, where we have created types and classifications - but that these are ideas in our own minds. We are not describing reality, we are describing our classifications. We are lost in our stories. The reason why I don't think your argument holds water, at least for most science, is that we can see the products of science working every day, even if we don't personally study them from first principles. I can see that my computer works, so I am convinced that all of the science involved in its creation is true - electricity, materials science, possibly some aspects of quantum mechanics, general relativity for my GPS clock, the speed of light when looking at the Latency of satellite communications, the chemistry of silicone which they use in the manufacturing process and others. I look at the plastic industry and pigment industry and junk food and medicine, and I know that chemistry is true. I look at how we successfully treat and prevent microbial diseases, or selectively breed plants and animals, and I know that genetics is true. Do I need to deeply understand each of these phenomena? Not really, and I don't even need to trust the scientists. All I need is to trust that the hundreds of thousands of engineers who apply these processes every day are not lying about how they make it work. I don't need to trust them that it works, that I can see for myself.

feralimal 6y ago
I'm glad it is fascinating. You should think on this, and realise how much trust and faith you are putting into the stories you are told, and how much or how little it coheres with what is the gold standard - your personal experience. Yes - at school, I think you were convinced I think by water condensating and by the loud pop (as was I). This is almost the definition of a magic trick! You are told it explains something, but of course at that age, you wouldn't have looked at the experiment with a critical or knowledgeable eye. The evidence that we were shown as kids should not be considered rigorous or acceptable in science - mixing invisible gases in an open container that allows air in, is not rigorous. Personally I have not seen any examples of this experiment that are undertaken in what I deem to be an acceptable scientific manner. I too believe that computers work. :) I don't dispute that we are able to use things to create some excellent technology. What I dispute that we know what we're doing. What I'm saying is that we do not get to see or understand the first principles. We do not see them in almost any of the science we are presented when we are taught at school. What we are given are claims and explanations that are not supported by the evidence. We are put in a position where we are forced to trust. It seems we require an explanation, so much so that we will latch on to any story rather than sit uncomfortably with one or 2 open-ended hypotheses. The heart of the issue, we are not given evidence to know, we are given a claim to believe. I can know I am resting on a table. I can know that if I drop my pen it will fall on the table. There is no debate to be had. There is a clear path to experience, or empiricism. Empiricism is purported to be the basis of science, but some very basic ideas are not actually possible to experience it seems. In the original article here, evolution is the implied explanation. But, we have no means to test or confirm the truth or not. We cannot see evolution occurring. (Feel free to point me to an article or something that you think shows this.) Yet we are all taught it as if it was true! If it is as I say, what we are presented with is an unfalsifiable theory which is without evidence. This is to say it is based on trust and faith. This is religious thinking, and is no different to a religion. Finally, are you aware of the replication crisis in science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis and https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 "According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments." There should be 100% replicability, not 30%. Science shouldn't be about playing the odds in a casino. And as to the science we do, funding is probably the most serious issue. All science funding comes from the government, the military and corporations. These 3 entities form our governance structure. This is to say they have vested interests in ensuring that only certain areas are looked into, the point being is that science is not an independent field of enquiry - it is about what is expedient to the governance structure.