Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Science is not Truth​

By Exegesisme

Science is not truth, and also can not be seen as truth. Science is a good way to look for truth, but itself is not truth. If we believe science is truth, we will stop at where we believe, and with an attitude against all sorts of new knowledge, for they are not science.

We should notice this phenomenon, any existed scientific knowledge is not new, and any new knowledge before scientific prove is not scientifical. Therefore, we should keep this idea, truth is out of our touch, we can only touch the images of truth. Science is the way of approaching truth, but can never achieve the truth. Scientifical knowledge is useful in finite domain, but is not truth.

We can respect science, but we can only worship truth.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck are you taking about?

Here there is a little about philosophy of time. From our experience, we can not say truth is in past, or at now, and even in future, for everything in time is imperfect. Truth should be absolute and perfect, so should only be out of time, and human can not know truth directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, strictly, science is the fifth way to reason the images of truth. Meditation, aesthetics, faith, and math are ahead of science.

Then your path to the truth is lined with opinion, believing for no good reason and, possibly faulty brain chemistry. I certainly wouldn't rely on any of those for an objective measure of truth, other than math of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time isn't a thing, it's just a way we measure the existence of things

This is about essence of time. Usually, science understands time as a dimension, and this dimension is very abstracted, and can be together with anything, however, as I argued above, time can not be with truth.

I accept the scientific idea of time, and also establish my own idea of time. In my idea of time, time can exist as many dimensions. For example, as the idea of my time, has such many dimensions: my time of meditation, my time of study, my time of action, my time of thinking, my time of speaking, and so on. Each dimension of time means differently. You go through one dimension of time, and can go back in other dimension of time to reexamine it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then your path to the truth is lined with opinion, believing for no good reason and, possibly faulty brain chemistry. I certainly wouldn't rely on any of those for an objective measure of truth, other than math of course.

You do not get the idea of my thread. In this topic, everything are faulty except truth. This is the strictest standard for understanding the idea of truth. I use "science is not truth" as headline, aim at stressing the supremacy of truth. Your argument is truth in common faulty understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding science from eye of human geography

By exegesisme

Eye of geography means to see everything in the process of its spatial distribution.

Eye of human geography means ​to see any human activity in the process of spatial distribution of the human activity.

Science is a human activity. From eye of human geography, the process of spatial distribution of science includes such phases:

1, personal inner developing phase, including personal interesting sub-phase, personal meditation sub-phase, personal witness sub-phase, personal hypothesis sub-phase, and personal evidence sub-phase.

2, personal out developing phase, including showing evidence to scientific community sub-phase, scientific community repeating similar evidence sub-phase, other institutional community repeating similar evidence sub-phase, political community repeating similar evidence sub-phase, national society repeating similar evidence sub-phase, international society repeating similar evidence sub-phase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, strictly, science is the fifth way to reason the images of truth. Meditation, aesthetics, faith, and math are ahead of science.

Honestly at this point I've tried about 6 times to respond to this post. Each time I end up hitting tab, or back, or something...but here goes again.

This tells me that your version of truth is so far removed from the (well) truth that it has no truthiness. I'm not sure why I'm continuing this tbh, other than sheer curiosity.

First:

I think you need to explain what you mean by "Images of truth", in plain english.

Next:

As for your "ways to reason"

Meditation - This can only lead to personal truth. Especially since Science is #5. You have to meditate on actual information to arrive at a truth based in reality.

Aesthetics - Appearance has very little to do with truth, aside from how something appears.

Faith - Again this is a personal truth, with no bearing what-so-ever on reality. Unless you are using it in the context of "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow". Is faith in this context that actions continue based on previous actions?

Math - I have two apples, I gain two more apples: It is now truth that I have 4 apples. Using truth in this way counters the other ways I assume that you are using it....

Science - Presumably using the above 4 to come to the truth. Which would put science as the overarching tool for finding truth, with the others feeding into it. So it should be first not last. The above "ways" are always subject to interpretation in the absence of the other 3, especially without an unbiased system to govern them.

There I feel better now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This tells me that your version of truth is so far removed from the (well) truth that it has no truthiness. I'm not sure why I'm continuing this tbh, other than sheer curiosity.

My vision of truth is perfect, and absolute unknown, so you can not approach it through science directly. All sciences are ways from the very clear known to the very clear unknown, they can not be used to deal with unclear unknown.

First:

I think you need to explain what you mean by "Images of truth", in plain english.

The common scientific results are not perfect, are still far away to the absolute unknown, so only images of truth.

Meditation - This can only lead to personal truth. Especially since Science is #5. You have to meditate on actual information to arrive at a truth based in reality.

Aesthetics - Appearance has very little to do with truth, aside from how something appears.

Faith - Again this is a personal truth, with no bearing what-so-ever on reality. Unless you are using it in the context of "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow". Is faith in this context that actions continue based on previous actions?

Math - I have two apples, I gain two more apples: It is now truth that I have 4 apples. Using truth in this way counters the other ways I assume that you are using it....

Science - Presumably using the above 4 to come to the truth. Which would put science as the overarching tool for finding truth, with the others feeding into it. So it should be first not last. The above "ways" are always subject to interpretation in the absence of the other 3, especially without an unbiased system to govern them.

There I feel better now.

Meditation: the only way to approach absolute unknown.

Aesthetics: the way to inspire your passion. What would the result be if you work on science without passion?

Faith: you make all your decisions on your believes, which can only be soundly refined through your life time faith, not just same ideas others told you.

Math: your understanding is math for kid. Do you hear anything about theoretical physics?

Science: with all the preparation above, now science is used to get the unknown images of truth in my definition.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Sigh, I'm getting punked aren't I. Oh well, it was worth trying once.

You and everyone who read my way approach truth should remember and admit I am the owner of the approach. I am required to claim the right.

Edited by Charles Anthony
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Similar Content

    • By Regina
      The Canadian Government is planning to waste at least $235 million for a project, The Thirty Meter Telescope, which won't even be built on Canadian soil.  The Thirty Meter Telescope most likely will employ few Canadians.  To make matters worse, the telescope will be built in Hawaii, USA on land which is both environmentally and religiously sensitive to the indigenous Hawaiians.  I hope everybody will protest against the waste of tax money and human rights abuses.  Please sign the petition to stop the injustice happening within the USA at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.  I am posting a link to an online petition against the Thirty Meter Telescope and waste of taxpayer money: https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-a-call-to-divest-canada-s-research-funding-for-the-thirty-meter-telescope-on-mauna-kea
      Please tell your friends to sign the petition too.  Thank you for your time.
    • By Canuck100
      A great source of information on the ‘Climate Model’ used by politicians to scam us! Should we be surprised how the wool was pulled over our eyes? 
       
      The scientists who believe in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming do so essentially because of the application of “basic physics” to climate, by a model that is ubiquitous and traditional in climate science. This model is rarely named, but is sometimes referred to as the “forcing-feedback framework or paradigm.” Explicitly called the “forcing-feedback model” (FFM) here, this pen-and-paper model estimates the sensitivity of the global temperature to increasing carbon dioxide.
      The FFM has serious architectural errors. Fixing the architecture, while keeping the physics, shows that future warming due to increasing carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of current official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.
      The large computerized climate models (GCMs) are indirectly tailored to compute the same sensitivity to carbon dioxide as the FFM. Both explain 20th century warming as driven mostly by increasing carbon dioxide.
      Increasing carbon dioxide traps more heat. But that heat mainly just reroutes to space from water vapor instead. This all happens high in the atmosphere, so it has little effect on the Earth’s surface, where we live. Current climate models omit this rerouting. Rerouting cannot occur in the FFM, due to its architecture—rerouting is in its blindspot.
      http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-climate-research-back-to-the-new-old-way-of-doing-science/
    • By Exegesisme
      4 Fundamental Changes of Science Will Be Very Soon, My Scientific Work​​
      By Exegesisme
      1 Fundamental changes of science will be very soon.
      2 I am discovering the structure of atomic nuclei and a crucial progress was made recently. The structures of atomic nuclei such as Ca, Fe, Ni and so on are as clear as the structure of molecules in front of me, the positions of every proton and neutron are careful arranged in my model of atomic nuclei.
      3 The modern physics has been built fundamentally on mistaking principles, their validities will be recounted on new principles.
      4 Sleep meditation will become the most fundamental mothed of scientific research and other human important practises.
      5 Some results now are already well prepared for journalism to make big news.
    • By Exegesisme
      3 Science of Word, My Study with Sleep Meditation​
      By Exegesisme
      1:45 PM 2015-11-21​
      1 John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
      2 According to my experience of my study with sleep meditation, the Word knows everything meaningfully to her. She pays attention to me to guide my work. I use the words she and her to represent the character of the Word. The word her represents her identity, the word she represents her intention-attention system at each moment.
      3 I found usual human words and grammars are not enough as I tried to express more meaningfully after I studied much human knowledge. I invented a new style of poetry as my grammar of expression, and many words with sounds but without meaning.
      4 I used these meaningless words in my new style poems, and tried to taste, feel and sense what sort of delicate meaning would appear. Through this account I opened the door of the testament of meaning.
      5 I have been noticing a new language is emerging in my account of poetry with sources from present English and present Chinese. The language is deconstructing the old meaning world and is constituting a new meaning world.
      6 The new meaning world is nearer to the pure meaning world of the Word, so everything is more accountable, more responsible and more liberty in the new meaning world than in the old meaning world.
      7 Accountability is key, not only to person of human, but also to per-being of everything.
      8 My new language is building on the science of the Word, and will provide ideas, methods and materials to the formal sciences and other theoretical sciences.
      9 My experience is meta-empirical, which means essentially empirical, and is the experience to understand other empirical experiences.
      10 This account is not in new language, but some meanings are from new language.
    • By Exegesisme
      2 Science of Mass, My Scientific Work​​
      By Exegesisme
      1, Mass essentially is a general magnitude of potential being of energy, and energy is a general magnitude of dynamic being of mass. Neutrino oscillation properly shows the relation between mass and energy, and Germany maybe make a surprising scientific discovery in this area. ​
      2, Science of mass is different from physics. In physics, mass is a property of physical matter, in science of mass, mass is core of physical world and non-physical world.
      3, In science of mass, gravitational mass is different from inertia mass. Gravitational mass is seen as out mass, all out masses are related to each other by gravity. For example, each particle is related to all other particles by gravity, so the jump up or down of an electron in an atom actually causes to absorb or radiate out a neutrino, except a photon, to represent an important change of position in the gravitational relation. Inertia mass is seen as inner mass, all inner masses as a whole show inertia in a motion caused by an integrated force, and as each other form sense, feelings, emotions in spirit, mind, soul.
      4, The magnitudes of mass in spirit is so subtle, a being can not directly feel, in mind is just large enough to sense for reason, and in soul is so large, the being of it is named as emotion. In other words, spirit is the faculty for very small magnitude of mass at present stage still without obvious meaning, mind is the faculty for the magnitude of mass with reasonable meaning, soul is the faculty for the magnitude of mass with emotion to form an immediate attitude.
      5, In different developed level of individual, or society, the magnitude of mass for spirit, mind, and soul are different. Although all human beings, and all societies should be respected, however, they are truly at different levels in the order of holy hierarchy.
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...