Could There Be a 'Reason' For Climate Change Denial?

Nobody mentioned the most obvious one Internet Protocol.

 

I wasn't talking about technology, I was speaking of space, universe and cosmology. God it's like trying to communicate with a siv sometimes.

 

Computers use science on space to operate ( GPS) and Cosmologists use computers to understand Space.

 

I guess you could say the use of science as in acting on the urge to know more and know things for certain is rooted in ignorance.
Knowledge and technological advancement is rooted in science.

Not sure which scientists you have been listening to but most I took notice of readily admit this.

 

If no one had ever looked at the world scientifically.. I don't know. It might come in useful if an asteroid is ever going to hit us. We might be able to prevent it.

Science also increased my sense of God.

 

Irminsul, have you ever seen this? I'm interested in your view of it, because it's not a theory, it's observable results in an experiment. It always makes me feel.. I don't know, kind of excited by how weird reality is. And, as a creature that could consider itself an "observer", important.

 

They admit it in the sense that they're smarter and wiser than you for knowing this, though. That's the caveat. It's all about attitude. Show me a truly humble scientist, or even a scientist who chronically lacks self-confidence. I hearken back to the days of Turing.

This breaking the second law of thermodynamics thing is interesting, though. I've always been an advocate of a 4D block universe, or something along those lines. I don't believe that the universe is such that it has a linear frame of time that moves from order to disorder. I don't believe there is truly a difference between order and disorder. So it's interesting to me that this law is allegedly broken in a sense. It makes perfect sense to me. Maybe I'm just ahead of the curve.

 

Gimmie 12hrs or so, I'll watch next time I'm in the bath.

 

Also, the video you brought up, Asmo, brings us back to the multiverse, which is how physicists try to explain what happens in the double slit experiment. I don't believe we live in a multiverse. I think it's highly more likely that this universe is partially engineered to behave this way, probably by a super advanced intelligence. I say partly, because I think they have a set of unavoidable parameters to deal with as well, which is just the nature of being. And I think these circumstances are highly mystical and seemingly magical in nature, which is why a particle can also behave as a wave. That's just the nature of things, regardless of our ability to understand it.

Physicists, though, want you to believe that there are an infinite number of possibilities, and the act of measurement causes just one of these potentialities to occur. That's how they explain it. So they posit a multiverse in which infinite numbers of you exist, and infinite numbers of everything else. I just don't feel that way. On some level, I think I'd be able to sense it if there were another me out there somewhere. I just really feel alone in myself. I wouldn't even see any purpose whatsoever in there being more than one of me.

Science has forsaken mystery in some sense. They want you to believe that sense can be made of everything, and I'm afraid that just isn't so. What the double slit experiment explicitly shows is that, logically, nothing makes sense.

 

Not if they remain open for the possibility of other more sound theories, or open to be proven factually wrong. The theories you seem to be hinting at (although to be certain we would have to get more specific i guess ) are used to fill in the gaps until people know more.
Science on itself is if course not an organisation.

I don't think anybody said an organisation can't be ignorant. Yes, even a scientific organisation can be.

Not every unproven theory makes as much sense as other theories. I think that's the crux where you go wrong in above argument. Even among the more accepted ones, as in having a consensus, there are degrees of how certain it is. Like, the theory that space is for a large part empty is shifting. The theory on dark matter is commonly known not clear on what dark matter is exactly. The big bang theory how ever is less based on merely theory but also on observation and math, like practical science. Still, most scientists acknowledge it is uncertain what caused it and what was before the big bang, and the universe. You won't hear many proclaiming to know it all for certain, even if they find they have a convincing theory about it.

One of the best examples of a scientific theory that got strenghtened by scientific research seems to be the existence of black holes, what impact they seem to have and how they come in existence.

You should also have looked up the dictionary definition of science. Science is not knowledge and information. It is, and i also googled for our convenience :

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

This means that as long as there's no absolute evidence on a particular s ubject matter its perfectly normal to 1) go by the most plausible theory, which is generally decided by the majority of people who have in some way been scientifcly involved with that particular subject. Can include critics. and 2) to have multiple and perhaps even conflicting theories in circulation at the same time.

So, what is the biggest factor that makes science an organised system of ignorance? That there can be multiple theories on a scientific subject which makes it certain its uncertain for the time being, or that there are organisations or a general consensus on one theory that is build upon further as if it wasn't only a theory?

 

It's all in the definition of the word ignorance, like I pointed out.

 

Yes, nice creative use of the english language but if we look at the sentence you connect it to that defines science and formulate it right you will see how its not more than that.

 

That's cool, like I said, we can pretend the dictionary is wrong to suit your opinions.

 

Why is the multiverse theory such an exception to this rule? Not one iota of evidence to prove it, yet most well-regarded scientists are in support of it. The reason why being that the alternative suggests that our universe really was fine-tuned to be as it is.

It's as though they are such narcissists that they just can't accept or even have to fight against the idea that there is anything more intelligent than they are. That's really what I think it boils down to. Earth's scientists want to be the smartest things that ever existed. Sounds ridiculous, is ridiculous, but is also fundamentally true.

They may not claim to know it for certain - they would lose their credibility as scientists if they did - but they say it is what they believe, with the belief that their status makes their positions irrefutable.

 

The thing is you are the one who's playing with words so it (seems to) support your opinion.

I edited and reworded. The dictionary definition of ignorance may be correct but you define science as knowledge and information, on which the sentence 'science is an organised system of ignorance' seems to be based.
I shared the objective definition of science for you

 

I can see how they get into the habit of being narcissistic, though. You're told all your life you're uber smart. And the rest of the Earthlings are virtually speechless when you have anything to say, that's how little of understanding they have. But if you really regard the bigger picture. We're probably all dumb as SHIT.

 

Here's another consideration about Irmis wording; if it was ment as science is an organised system of ignorance in the sense it is the pursuit to get away from ignorance, it actually is correct. Just like it technically IS rooted in ignorance. But the rest of the explanation of that post isn't about that.

 

Lol one sentence backed up by a dictionary sentence. Let's get over it people. It came from the start of an ICP song.

 

Yeah, you got us good. You clearly didn't mean anything about it
It's not primarily about the sentence, but more so about what you mean to say with it in this thread.

 

I said science is an organised system of ignorance. It related the post that was mentioned above me and in now way entwined in anything with this thread.

But there you go again putting words in my mouth, telling me what I'm thinking, telling me there's an agenda behind everything little thing that I post.

Circkle jerking.
Ohhh yeah I got her this time
Ohh yeahhhh
Mmmm
Squirt.