Is science stuck in blue pill hell?

[braininavatParticipant 95]

So TechCrunch has gone full-on PC/SJW with their “include” initiative.

Here’s a link (let me know if it doesn’t work): http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/04/announcing-the-techcrunch-include-hub-a-home-for-our-diversity-and-inclusion-program/

This raises a wider question about the science and technology that shapes our lives today in a technological world: is science completely captive to the blue pill agenda?

Well, yes and no. In terms of the public face of science, the narrative is blue pill in the extreme, but when real science is being done I have seen some PC twaddle get slapped down rather unsympathetically. And this includes the few women who make it into the top ranks of academia, who can be withering when it comes to idiotic feminist ideas. But there are also scientists and professors who use their position to evangelize for feminism, et al. The situation is pretty complicated, and it take a real effort at clear thinking to try to sort out all the various threads.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22524]

I have come to realize that science as now as dogmatic as religion is.

Keep in mind that critics are paid to find fault and criticize what they target.

For example, science as the institution is would never admit to the scientific discovery of of humans having souls because this discovery would go against their dogma, and they would view it as too much of a political issue for religious groups.

Actually, most of the discoveries half a century ago, or before that, would not have been about to stand up to the regulations and peer review in this day and age.

Such as penicillin would not have been approved by regulators in this day an age. Because it works too well. And there is still no clear understanding of why penicillin targets foreign microbes, but leaves human tissue unharmed.

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

Better question is: Is the world stuck in blue pill hell?

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[The Moth Attracted to the FlameParticipant 2982]

Science is on mighty thin ice when it comes to the blue pill. I mean, look what happened to Tim Hunt.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Faust for Science: The soul is, by definition, the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal. Given that definition, ‘finding’ something immaterial is not possible. So ‘science’ as a methodology limited by observation, can neither prove nor disprove a ‘soul’. Science doesn’t ‘admit’ anything; it acknowledges it. Indeed, a significant fraction of scientists are religious. If you could artificially sequence the human genome into a viable embryo, and implanted it in a womb, would the resulting person be conscious? Is the brain necessary and sufficient to explain consciousness? Those are some questions that can be asked, but they still don’t definitely answer whether a soul exists because you can’t disprove something immaterial any more than you can prove it.

I would say the scientific METHOD should be treated as dogma, as opposed to findings.

And where science interfaces with politics, there are distortions. ‘Climate’ science to me is quite suspect due to political influences and a poor track record of prediction so far — i.e. in its infancy. The public is biased against GMO’s due to media reporting. Bias in reporting of technology, intersecting with politics, results in poor decisions (e.g. photovoltaic solar farms).

Penicillin works by interfering with peptidoglycan, weakening bacteria cell walls. Human cells have cell membranes, so they are not so attacked. But you ARE right, in our litigious society, getting drugs approved takes YEARS due to the FDA and regulatory state. But THAT is not science, it is Law and Politics.

The peer review process works, but sometimes takes time — e.g. electrochemical cold fusion debunking of Pons and Fleischman. In this case, theorists be damned; labs tried the experiments, measured energy in and out by calorimetry, and reached conclusions REGARDLESS of whether it agreed was deemed possible according to the established theories. Scientists didn’t just say ‘bollocks, this can’t work’, they went to the labs and attempted to verify.

As for recruitment into the sciences, YES, it is PC BS, attempting to attract minorities specifically to ‘science’. Instead, just attract PEOPLE that have a penchant for it… After all, there are no special scholarships for MALE nurses because they’re under-represented… Or free school for MALE hair stylists….

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22524]

FrankOne wrote:

The soul is, by definition, the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal.

Now, you are you are using dogma to discredit the same dogma. You are saying that religion says the soul is immaterial therefore it must be immaterial.

The original point of science was to find the truth, not support the dogma of religion.

Everything big has religious roots. But, pair it down one finds tangle research.

It is a fact that at death human bodies release energy. And at death each adult human body loses around twenty-one grams of weight. Test after test, at death, it is always around twenty-one grams.

And that is not counting research on the other end, dealing with reincarnation.

But, those in power have every reason to discredit this research.

If soul, or even better reincarnation, was admitted, those in power would lose some of their power, because the fear of death being an end would have no power over the people. And that there was a state of being for people that those in power now cannot control.

In the end, it is all about power and control. Just as during the dark ages, religions and governments discredited and punished those that made discoveries that questioned those in authority, we still deal with such dogma today. Only, today those that silence the people that question don’t wear priestly robes, they suits and uniforms.

In spite of everything, this research is continuing and sidestepping the institutions that would silence it.

[RoyDalParticipant]

Is science stuck in blue pill hell?

Yes, scientists are mostly abject conformists, as is any other randomly chosen group of the population.

Better question is: Is the world stuck in blue pill hell?

Yes, the human herd is heading that direction for whatever reason.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[AristotleParticipant 48]

I think certain parts of science struggle with the blue pill problems. For instance, sociology (not really a science) suffers from the tendency to be overly subjective, I doubt anyone who did “PUA” type research would be able to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Biology probably struggles with being “allowed” to link human behavior to genetics, and tend to follow the tabula rasa premise that has been showed to be flawed.

[Tiga KParticipant 1693]

Considering science is based on human observation, and human observation is skewed by bias, I imagine science is to some degree made to conform to a blue pill worldview. Politics definitely influences the scientific worldview. I remember once disagreed with my health professor because she asked us to give her our opinion at the end of a worksheet. We had to watch a video of bill Clinton preaching veganism. In the worksheet I accused the video of being misleading and trying to scare meat eaters. The next day I got an email from my professor harshly criticizing my answer of the OPINION QUESTION. She said my opinion was wrong and that she was disappointed. I never made the mistake of practicing free speech in college ever again. The “intellectual” types can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious person.

[ShinyParticipant 2307]

From DSM-5:

The boundaries between normality and pathology vary across cultures for specific types of behaviors. Thresholds of tolerance for specific symptoms or behaviors differ across cultures, social settings, and families. Hence, the level at which an experience becomes problematic or pathological will differ. The judgment that a given behavior is abnormal and requires clinical attention depends on cultural norms that are internalized by the individual and applied by others around them, including family members and clinicians.

Admittedly psychiatry is not exactly ‘hard science’ but their attempts to provide critical diagnostic frameworks are generally according to scientific method.

Then they say, “well, one culture’s f~~~ed-up psychosis is another culture’s normal behaviour”.

Woohoo. Science is all relative, fellas. Who wants rigid s~~~ like truth and replicability?

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Faust: If the soul exists AND is material, then it can be destroyed or altered. So I don’t think ‘soul’ is the correct term for whatever it is you describe.

That said, this sort of inquiry HAS been pursued by science. The earliest was measuring weights of bodies dead vs alive, Kirlian photography, etc. So far, clairvoyants can’t even count how many ‘auras’ they see in a dark room consistently, so, no positive results so far. So thus far, it’s all been pseudoscience. Using a beam balance to measure a large mass like a human body, and rejecting many of the results, as was the basis for the ’21 g’ makes it quite suspect. There has been recent research on mice indicating they lose a couple mg on death, but NOT in a sealed container, making evaporative losses the likely explanation. http://www.learning-mind.com/can-the-human-soul-be-weighed/ It is definitely NOT an established fact that human beings release energy on death. And Orch-Or has been discredited.

Nobody is silencing paranormal research, but very few are funding it, either. As link above indicates, curious individuals have on their own looked into some of this.

And so far, nobody has claimed James Randi’s prize money.

Shiny: DSM is a ‘political’ document as far as I’m concerned. One year, homosexuality is a ‘mental disorder’, the next year, it’s not. Is being a loner a mental disorder? Or a narcissist? For most disorders, you cannot measure neurotransmitter levels or come up with a biochemical/physical test for a’disorder’.

So it’s very different from, say, physics. Physics is not ‘relative’ to the observer; the trajectory of a mass with forces acting upon it, is measurable and well defined. In the end, though, we develop a model and see if it fits the data. Often these models are WRONG, limited, or not UNIVERSAL; e.g. classical mechanics fails to explain motion at the atomic level OR at high velocities, and that’s why quantum mechanics and relativity were developed. But we can never be certain these models cover all cases. And the models are still based upon human perceptions, and so, do not answer whether reality is ‘real’ or only in our minds.

Politics plays a MAJOR role in science as it determines funding — will we spend billions on Space Shuttles to send men into low earth orbit for little scientific gain, or will the money be spent on probes to planets with more scientific ‘bang for the buck’? Will research dollars be wasted on, say, coal liquefaction plants? Will we spend ever more on fusion research without success or a better plan to achieve results? Will projects be funded for ‘carbon sequestration’? These are but a few examples.

[Silpheed1975Participant 355]

I agree with one thing that Faust for Science has said. If people knew that they had a soul…

Faust For Science wrote:

FrankOne wrote:

The soul is, by definition, the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal.

Now, you are you are using dogma to discredit the same dogma. You are saying that religion says the soul is immaterial therefore it must be immaterial.

The original point of science was to find the truth, not support the dogma of religion.

Everything big has religious roots. But, pair it down one finds tangle research.

It is a fact that at death human bodies release energy. And at death each adult human body loses around twenty-one grams of weight. Test after test, at death, it is always around twenty-one grams.

And that is not counting research on the other end, dealing with reincarnation.

But, those in power have every reason to discredit this research.

If soul, or even better reincarnation, was admitted, those in power would lose some of their power, because the fear of death being an end would have no power over the people. And that there was a state of being for people that those in power now cannot control.

I believe in life after death. Plus it’s kinda cool to tell the world, Obi Wan style that “You can strike me down…..” but you can’t touch my soul. Currently, that really helps with the whole ‘laugh at death’ part. I’m not suicidal, but I have had a time where a crazy with a Glock entered a cafe where me and my friends were. Both my army buddies took cover under the table… I calmly sipped my coffee, and even casually spoke with said crazy gunman. Knowing there is life after death, and that I believe that when it’s time to die, it will happen when it’s supposed to happen. I look at most events like this one a certain way.: Either this is where I die, or I don’t…..so f~~~ it.

Silpheed's Mom Quote: "Having PMS is no excuse to be a bitch.."

[The Moth Attracted to the FlameParticipant 2982]

Just passed by this portion of an article claiming that physics is sexist. Will post here.

Look at #2.
And here’s “Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace” also.

[ShinyParticipant 2307]

FrankOne wrote:

Shiny: DSM is a ‘political’ document as far as I’m concerned. One year, homosexuality is a ‘mental disorder’, the next year, it’s not.

Exactly the point I was making, bro.

FrankOne wrote:

Politics plays a MAJOR role in science as it determines funding.

And I agree with you there, so even the hard sciences are influenced.

[SkeptiskParticipant 3679]

Faust For Science wrote:

It is a fact that at death human bodies release energy. And at death each adult human body loses around twenty-one grams of weight. Test after test, at death, it is always around twenty-one grams.

And that is not counting research on the other end, dealing with reincarnation.

Ever Since “The Matrix”, and scientists claim that there’s a 20% chance we’re all sims, I’ve wondered myself if we’re hooked up, like in the movie – or being AI’s.

And thinking about this just now, I wondered, “‘how do AI’s develop?'” My theory is that all AI’s goes through ‘training’ over several iterations we call ‘lives’. The beginning starts with the AI in the early neolithic age, and begins to learn. It’s not about the physical interactions that happens in this simulation, but the social interactions. The physical realm is just a vehicle to transmit the message.

And at the end, how developed will the AI be?

The 21 grams loss is the ‘core data’ of the AI that is transmitted through each ‘life’.

And my theory would explain the out-of-body experiences, not to mention those returning to life after seeing the ‘bright light’. This bright light is the threshold that transmits the AI into the next iteration (or ‘life’). It’s not a new idea, mind you, just my take on it with a twist.

"Expecting to find a decent woman on a dating site is like dumpster diving and expecting to come out with a gourmet meal." Won'tGetFooledAgain

[Author]

Posts