Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Don't You People Ever Even Consider What You're Doing? How You're Doing it? - Hate Mail

No such a thing as science that is absolutely objective exists, science that isn't, at every stage, in every way,the product of a person and then a group of people reporting what they've experienced. There is no science that is ultimately unmitigated by and shielded from human choices, most of all the choices of what to believe.  Yes, THAT word, belief.  Science is, ultimately, a matter of belief, the will to believe that some things are of absolute truth, which can't be demonstrated scientifically.

Observation requires an observer who experiences what is observed.  Counting and measuring things and data are also done by people and their invented tools verified as valid through experience. Analysis is only possible through consulting past experience and holding new experiences and reports of those up to it.   That means A PERSON USING THEIR OWN MIND IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF SCIENTIFIC DATA.   Furthermore, even before we get to science, proper, mathematics, the foundation of all of science is the product of people who have to consult their own experience of something so seemingly squishy and unreliable to the moderny, sciency, "skeptical" mind as if something seems to them to make sense.   Much of that consultation a person makes of their own experience to see if a proposition of mathematics makes sense happens when they are, indeed, very young, very ignorant, very impressionable and very naive, generally about the time when they learn that if they put one thing with one other thing they have something they can, then, regard as two of something.   You all did it, those of you who seemingly never mastered the times tables to those of you who work in pure mathematics at the post-graduate level, everything you do rests on the choices you made to believe your own experience at the youngest of ages.

And the even more sub-ground foundation of science and of mathematics, logical inference, rests on a person consulting their experience at an even younger age, that is if they ever understood even the first thing about elementary arithmetic instead of just accepting it by rote learning.  And even rote learning is a product of experience.  

So the objection to the point I brought up, that the athesit-materialist "skeptics" duping people into believing there is something wrong with relying on experience is bound to damage the acceptance of science rests in another of those superstitions so widely held by athist-materialists and those who they've either duped, or more likely bullied into parroting their dogmas.  It is a complete superstition, knowable to be a superstition to an absolute degree of reliability,  that there is something called SCIENCE, that rests as a pure, objective, ideal thing that is unsullied by the unreliable minds of human beings.  

There is no such thing, it doesn't exist, it is a con job sold by people who have proven themselves to be con men interested entirely in pushing their own ideological POV above everything, including the most rigorously conducted and carefully controlled science.  

What turns out to be another myth is that ideological materialism has been either necessary or good for science, it has been a disaster, all round.  

It was a mistake to mistake the agreed to subject matter of science, in the beginning of it, the universe as considered as a physical thing, as the same thing as atheist materialism.   It never was, as can be seen from the absolute historical fact that all of the founders of science were not materialists but were religious believers.  Including Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, etc.  As materialists lie about the nature of science, they also lie about history with an abandon that is amazing.  What is most amazing is how they've been allowed to get away with it in universities, among the intellectual class.   I've come to believe they got away with most of it because most of the people who are regarded to be of the intellectual class had a faulty foundation in their science and mathematics education and are afraid to expose themselves as what they are, dependent on the claims of others.  But that's the same for everyone, including scientists, including scientists who do not have the time to really review even all of what they use, never mind other topics in science that aren't part of their specialty.  THEY ALL HAVE TO TAKE ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF SCIENCE ON FAITH.   In the wake of the scandals of science, such as those reported at Retraction Watch, such as those discussed in the podcast I linked to yesterday, it is clear that that faith is generally, today, on some rather shakey foundations of misplaced confidence.  And just when we need science to be reliable because we are using science to destroy the one and only environment which we need to live.  The decadence which science and the culture has been brought to under a regime of atheism endangers science because it endangers all of us. 

This is a horrible tragedy because there has never been a time in human history when we need honest, well done science in so many areas and we need to be able to have an intelligent and valid confidence in it.   Mixing the show-biz crap and ideological dishonesty of the pseudo-skeptics has made things far, far worse.  Mixing in the garbage of the materialists, especially those who have used the social sciences - the origin of some of the worst science ever done - has made things ever so much worse.   Those were original source of the attack on experience, using anomalies in some pretty bogus and artificial experments and, especially,  the conditions of people unable to deal rationally with what experiences they have to try to gull the mass of humanity into not believing their own experience was a valid and necessary means of knowing what was going on around them.   

That's a lot of science to undermine for the support of their own, preferred ideology of materialist atheism.  But, then, there's nothing in materialism that requires honesty or which, in the end, accepts as a solid conclusion that one thing is better than another thing, both of which are also foundations of science.  It doesn't work at all unless you honestly report what your experience leads you to believe. And it's a rare atheist in my experience who goes to a lot of trouble for the truth, though I've encountered the odd outlier among the outright liars. 


  1. I'm reminded of the Japanese soldiers in caves on Pacific islands who never heard the war had ended. These "logical positivists" haven't heard their fundamental principles were clearly and completely repudiated: the war is over, and their side lost.

    The news reports that Hawking has solved a problem of black holes. I can't really tell from news accounts which are barely scientifically literate, but it does sound like his "solution" is an explanation that preserves thermodynamics and quantum mechanics by coming up with an explanation no one can test or observe, but makes everyone feel better that basic science is still intact, despite the math. And, according to at least one account, it involves an alternate universe as the "escape hatch."

    More and more these guy sound like medieval theologians.

    1. If you stipulate, bottom rung medieval theologians, I'd agree. I've been listening to mp3s of Aquinas while I'm doing my fall house cleaning and he's a lot better thinker than my formal education had led me to believe. I'm kind of ashamed at how much of an ignorant bigot that left me.

    2. Yeah, I was going for the stereotype, never a really good thing to do. But I can appreciate that theology sometimes seems to leave the ground behind, so to speak; and I can appreciate that quantum mechanics is valid even though I don't understand one thing about it that validates it empirically for me. But I also know some theologians and philosophers disappear up their own presumptions (or, as Kierkegaard put it, there was a man who became so concerned about establishing his own existence, he woke up one morning to find he didn't exist anymore!).

      But when they start telling me something has to happen in an event horizon that doesn't violate the known laws of the cosmos and so we'll come up with an explanation that satisfies quantum mechanics and the Newtonian universe, and we'll throw in alternate universes for good measure, it all starts to sound like "Star Trek" to me; or like a bunch of guys trying to explain something they should just shake their heads and stand in awe of.

      And medieval scholasticism went pretty far in going too far, eventually. So it's still a cheap shot, but only just.