Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 10:51:49 UTC No. 16157575

>>16157573
Is it good?

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 10:52:56 UTC No. 16157576

>>16157575
I'll pass, thanks.

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 13:00:40 UTC No. 16157662

Too many people think science is this magical thing that if you do it enough you can find out anything you want about the universe. That always seemed odd to me. Things like the origin of life or the universe are things I don’t think science can answer. You can’t test something like that. You can make theories but you can’t test adequately. So much of our supposed knowledge of the history of the universe or humanity comes from theorizing about what could’ve happened. I think the amount of real scientific knowledge to be gained is pretty much over.

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 14:48:27 UTC No. 16157752

>>16157662
Most people have no understanding what science is other than as a word that effectively substitutes for concepts such as faith, belief and religion. Empirical studies, which is nothing but the habit of extrapolating from what one sees, has been done by humans ever since. The scientific method then adds only a single additional requirment which is: Experiments meant to gauge the laws of our universe, note already the introduction of a metaphysical concept here, must be carried out in an identical environment if a decision should be made in regards to whether or not a given hypothesis actually holds true.
>Things like the origin of life or the universe are things I don’t think science can answer.
Science can't answer anything that pertains to the mind or emotions other than what is communicated via overt behavior
Science can't answer anything where the act of measuring influences and determines outcome which technically applies to both micro- and macroscopic processes.
Science can't answer or even explain the foundation on which the acclaimed laws rest.

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 15:03:59 UTC No. 16157779

>>16157573
Pure soi cringe

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 15:11:33 UTC No. 16157796

>>16157662
>Things like the origin of life or the universe are things I don’t think science can answer
Look up Nick Lane's research on the origin of life. A lot of real, experimental labwork has happened in the last decades. They are able to recreate the basic building blocks of metabolism, even without RNA or DNA replicators, by recreating the chemistry of underwater alkaline hydrothermal vents. It looks very much like metabolism (Krebs cycle etc) came before replicators.

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 16:14:24 UTC No. 16157857

>>16157796
Even so they are seeing if something is possible. But I don’t see how we can use the scientific process to prove a historical fact of however long the earth or universe has been here.

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 16:23:34 UTC No. 16157870

>>16157752
Yes. Too many substitute science for any sort of spiritual faith. I see a lot of people claiming “science has debunked the idea of free will.” And I just wonder how? Because I dumb little psychology experiment showed the parts of the brain light up? People are so enamored theory their idea of what science is that they disregard their own self knowledge. Science would have a really hard time disproving free will. Science in this scenario would be looking on the outside of the mind to determine what is going on inside. But we all have access to the insides of our own minds and can see the truth about free will. It simply is true. Everyone believes free will exists because we experience it. And who better to know the answer that would require looking inside the mind than a person who has access to a mind? But people would rather think a science experience had more insight so they disregard their own minds experience of itself.

Philosophers too stumble on this question. Because they can’t articulate what free will would mean they disregard the concept. Thus, even though they experience free will, that they cannot give an articulate explanation for what it is they experience, they claim their experience is false. They cannot think that there may be a phenomenon that would be beyond the human mind to explain or just that they don’t have the language or proper view to articulate yet. Or philosophers who claim that since physics shows a determined world, the human mind is determined. Even though their experience would tell them they are not determined but have free will. Their obsession with only accepting things they can explain or to be consistent with science leads them to deny obvious reality.

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 16:37:22 UTC No. 16157880

>>16157779
Yeah, this midwit shit gives me terminal levels of fremdscham.