Controversial Opinions on Life

[skeptik]

If you were merely asking a question, then I apologize for being rude. I mistakenly thought you were being declarative.

While it is true that the "science" that we understand in this universe may not necessarily apply to other universes, that does not mean that, if we actually had access to other universes, we would be incapable of studying them and accurately (to our observations) defining their unique properties. To do so may actually help to better understand the way that our own universe looks.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you're trying to complicate things. Science isn't by any means perfect, and mistakes/missteps are a natural part of the learning process, but with it people are working towards a better understanding of how things work. I think it's necessary to label as such so we're able to learn and educate each other in a far more efficient manner. Can you really think of a better way to learn about our surroundings?

Even if scientists did observe something like gravity in another universe, they probably wouldn't call it gravity, and if they did only to later realize that it is very different, they would then call it something else and explain why it's different to the best of their ability. However, it would definitely help to know about gravity
(what we believe it to be), otherwise we might as well just call everything magic or "an act of god".

I agree with the first part of your post, and I'm not trying to undermine scientific progress. All I'm saying is that we would be mistaken to indiscriminately apply our scientific theories to supernatural phenomena. I actually disagree with your second assertion that if we observed a phenomenon that appeared similar to gravity, we would not call it that; I think that if scientists somehow entered an alternate universe and witnessed apple-like objects falling from trees, they would hypothesize that that universe had gravity. The skepticism should force them to doubt their own assertion.

The danger lies in casually accepting a hypothesis or theory for so long that it eventually becomes an axiom, or an acknowleged truth. This was exactly what happened during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, until the Scientific Revolution occurred and we had skeptical thinkers questioning previously held truths that dated back to Aristotle.

Now, in a new ironic twist of history, science itself is beginning to question its own truthfulness. It has, in a certain sense, become the new dominant religion.

 

[skeptik]

Science is a self-regulating and self-correcting agent; in other words, it is the antithesis of a religion. I'm also fairly confident that scientists would not act like retards that do not understand that an alternate universe may have different characteristics from ours and would not automatically conclude that phenomena that that on the surface appear similar to those found in our universe would be absolutely identical, or that if they did conclude this that they would not correct themselves once they found evidence to the contrary. I somehow doubt that some random people with no pedigree on an internet metal forum would know better.

 

[Dak]

The danger lies in casually accepting a hypothesis or theory for so long that it eventually becomes an axiom, or an acknowleged truth. This was exactly what happened during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, until the Scientific Revolution occurred and we had skeptical thinkers questioning previously held truths that dated back to Aristotle.

Now, in a new ironic twist of history, science itself is beginning to question its own truthfulness. It has, in a certain sense, become the new dominant religion.

The problem is, at least in the public eye, scienctists very rarley say "this is what we understand to be true now, but our understanding may change in the future as we continue to learn". The new claim is merely made and slapped with the tag "This is Scientific!". Then, anyone who questions it until the claim is rendered obsolete is a "science denier" or what have you. Of course, ten years down the road the original claim is rendered obsolete, a new claim is made and slapped with the same tag, and those who question it are, again, labeled as science deniers.

 

[Vimana]

Controversial opinion: Ancient Aliens isn't 100% full of shit.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I am of the opinion that ancient civilizations were more technologically advanced than we give them credit for, but not because of aliens. Look how much technical and scientific knowledge was lost after the fall of the Roman Empire. Surely a similar "brain drain" happened after the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Mayans (as a few examples) lost their dominance. Considering what has happened since the Renaissance, and especially the Industrial Revolution, it is obvious to me that technology advances quickly rather than slowly.

 

[Vimana]

Definitely with the Mayans. The Spanish burned all of their books but four, and apparently they had shitloads. They must have been filled with knowledge since the Aztecs didn't have the advanced concept of zero until they conquered post-classic Mayan cities. Basically, all the astronomical, mathematic, and scientific achievements the Aztecs are credited with came from peoples, mostly post-classic Mayans.

Controversial opinion: The Spanish's imperialism was ultimately better for the rest of the world. If Zheng He didn't get his funding cut off by the newly-emerging Ming dynasty, they would have eventually reached the Americas, and probably have traded the knowledge of gun powder. If that trade reached the Aztecs, basically, the world would have been fucked. But then again, the Aztec empire was falling apart a couple decades before the Spanish arrived. It's what happens when you have an emperor who keeps albinos, midgets, and disfigured people as pets.

 

[skeptik]

The problem is, at least in the public eye, scienctists very rarley say "this is what we understand to be true now, but our understanding may change in the future as we continue to learn". The new claim is merely made and slapped with the tag "This is Scientific!". Then, anyone who questions it until the claim is rendered obsolete is a "science denier" or what have you. Of course, ten years down the road the original claim is rendered obsolete, a new claim is made and slapped with the same tag, and those who question it are, again, labeled as science deniers.

Can you give an example or two of this from the past couple decades that doesn't involve eggs, salt, or anything else not food-based?

 

[TheInsane]

I am of the opinion that ancient civilizations were more technologically advanced than we give them credit for, but not because of aliens. Look how much technical and scientific knowledge was lost after the fall of the Roman Empire. Surely a similar "brain drain" happened after the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Mayans (as a few examples) lost their dominance. Considering what has happened since the Renaissance, and especially the Industrial Revolution, it is obvious to me that technology advances quickly rather than slowly.

Ona related note I dont believe in endless historical progress. Therefore I dont think that we necessarilly live in the best of times right now as so many people seem to take for granted. Yes, we have things that they didnt have and that woudl indeed seem like magic to anyone even 100 years ago. But if we value quality and not material quantity I think modern society has alot to learn from days past.

 

[SentinelSlain]

As soon as you look towards directing progress in any manner other than purely the technological, you end up getting into left wing politics, or at least coming into conflict with laissez fair liberalism.

 

[Dak]

Can you give an example or two of this from the past couple decades that doesn't involve eggs, salt, or anything else not food-based?

Is anything more important than food/water?

 

[skeptik]

Is anything more important than food/water?

Cosmically? Yeah. I also wouldn't really compare the scientific rigor of food sciences with other 'hard' sciences.

 

[Dak]

Cosmically? Yeah. I also wouldn't really compare the scientific rigor of food sciences with other 'hard' sciences.

I don't see anything as more important acientifically than the body and how it is affected by various fuel and environmental factors.

 

[skeptik]

On a cosmic scale, the plight of the human being is rather inconsequential, don't you think?

 

[Dak]

On a cosmic scale, the plight of the human being is rather inconsequential, don't you think?

Science hasn't determined that yet.

Also, searching out "the cosmos" without "taking care of first things first" is rather shortsighted.

 

[skeptik]

I think it's pretty obvious that mankind has absolutely minimal impact on anything in our solar system, let alone our galaxy or other galaxies or the universe as a whole. You asked me if anything was more important than food and water. You didn't specify that the conversation was limited to a humanocentric perspective based on physical need.

 

[Dak]

I think it's pretty obvious that mankind has absolutely minimal impact on anything in our solar system, let alone our galaxy or other galaxies or the universe as a whole. You asked me if anything was more important than food and water. You didn't specify that the conversation was limited to a humanocentric perspective based on physical need.

Well what's the point of gaining knowledge for the human race if we expire in the process because we overlooked the basics? Human knowledge (which science is a part of) is humancentric by definition.

 

[skeptik]

"What is more important than food and water" and "what is more important to humanity than food and water" are very different questions, that's my point. The universe doesn't care about what scientists on earth know or do.

Edit: I think what you're getting at is that you think science should do a better job in the field of food research and whatnot. I agree, but this is an issue of the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be. Earlier, I was merely pointing out the reality that the scientific rigors of food science are not equal to that of hard sciences, or at least that is my impression. Nonetheless, I was still hoping for an example or two of what you were saying earlier that wasn't related to food science.

 

[Dak]

"What is more important than food and water" and "what is more important to humanity than food and water" are very different questions, that's my point. The universe doesn't care about what scientists on earth know or do.

Edit: I think what you're getting at is that you think science should do a better job in the field of food research and whatnot. I agree, but this is an issue of the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be. Earlier, I was merely pointing out the reality that the scientific rigors of food science are not equal to that of hard sciences, or at least that is my impression. Nonetheless, I was still hoping for an example or two of what you were saying earlier that wasn't related to food science.

I frankly don't do enough reading in fields outside of nutrition/health/economics/history to even address that in an educated fashion. You are correct that my original statement/question was poorly worded.

 

[Einherjar86]

Science is a self-regulating and self-correcting agent; in other words, it is the antithesis of a religion. I'm also fairly confident that scientists would not act like retards that do not understand that an alternate universe may have different characteristics from ours and would not automatically conclude that phenomena that that on the surface appear similar to those found in our universe would be absolutely identical, or that if they did conclude this that they would not correct themselves once they found evidence to the contrary. I somehow doubt that some random people with no pedigree on an internet metal forum would know better.

I disagree with this on a semantic basis.

Science, as an institution within our current global capitalist society, is not a self-regulating and self-correcting agent.

Science as an abstract ideal, is; but then again, so are all secular societal institutions (i.e. political regimes, economic systems, etc.).

It has been documented in texts such as Susan Scott Parish's American Curiosity that European knowledge frameworks and epistemological methodologies were instituted rigorously during the colonization of the American continents. In the historical tradition of classification, European explorers did not bother to invent new knowledge constructs; rather, they fit new biological and physiological phenomena into old frameworks. I don't see that human expansion into new cosmic worlds or alternate realities would be much different, provided we have the militaristic and cultural advantages that European conquistadors did.

Can you give an example or two of this from the past couple decades that doesn't involve eggs, salt, or anything else not food-based?

In current times, scientists are consistently discovering new anomalies that call into question previously theorized laws such as gravity and time, as well as human consciousness itself. None of this has changed the general popular consensus regarding any of these theories, or the popular educational approach to them.