SkyBlueFlux said:
MCFCinUSA said:
all I'll contribute from personal experience & my hard scientific background is that we don't know anything like as much as we think we do.. we're all pretty arrogant (if we think otherwise) and 'science' is as much a 'religion' if you ask me, and Richard Dawkins is one of its high priests.
we're very puny when it comes to scientifically explaining things & having everything fit within our conceptual frameworks, and I've seen & experienced things that make a mockery of those offering up rigid hard scientific explanations or 'truths'.
with regards to time, it's a hypothetical construct that exists in each of us (which is one way of looking at things) and in another it isn't what we collectively perceive & understand it to be; much of which is illusory & far too complex for us to comprehend.
in conclusion, I know enough to know that I don't know, and the more I know the more I realise how much I don't know
(and I've seen numerous events over the past three decades that make a mockery of our modern thinking and defy all manner of existing scientific explanation, as have others I've shared such with)
Science is an evolving body of ever-improving and revolutionising evidentially supported theories which are our best explanation for what we see around us. There is no such thing as a scientific truth. That's an inherently dogmatic concept which is contrary to the very definition of science. There is no science that cannot be undone with bodies of opposing evidence.
You say these events you've seen have 'made a mockery' of our existing scientific explanations. You do realise that if you can evidentially support those claims then they would
become science? That
is how science works and so as a result your entire post makes very little sense to me. If you think science is wrong on these things then... prove it... and your explanation (or disproof) will become science. There's no 'agenda' in science, it's just a method of filtering out what works as an explanation from what doesn't work.
You say we know next to nothing about the universe. Every single scientist you speak to (and I'd include myself in that bracket) would agree with you, yet you seem to paint them as being arrogant and under the belief they know everything. Dark matter and dark energy being a case in point... 95%+ of the universe is made of stuff we currently have next to zero understanding of.
you make an excellent argument and I'm in agreement with you (coming from a handful of years spent in a research toxicology laboratory and a family of PhD researchers) but it's people like Dawkins who seek to elevate things beyond what they are who verge on arrogance of things they seemingly have very little experience of.
my statements only arise from phenomenon I've experienced that cannot be explained by modern scientific paradigms, that simply do not make sense, and would have you castigate and ridicule someone else if they came to you and told you things that you can only experience for yourself (shit that is simply too far out of our everyday experiences) before you can accept they are real..
- and before anyone attempts to comment, I'm from a hard scientific background and am naturally a huge cynic; my experiences have been varied and covered numerous unusual people I've been lucky to have my mind & horizons broadened by over several decades.. there is so much that we don't know, and a lot more to most things than first meets the eye, which is all beyond our individual comprehension.
those that know don't talk, those that talk don't know (which is a bit like the transfer forum in here, ehehe)