Science is not a perfect institution

You know you're not being honest. And I don't need to comment on that.

Although when I'm having an argument with you, it is difficult to win it, since you slip off as soon as confronted with a question you have no answer to! It has happened 100% of the time we are having a real discussion!

And although, it is not me winning an argument, its the truth winning the argument. I just happen to be on the side of the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

just relax, meditate and look within yourself. I'm talking about natural masculinity which is within us.

I am sure you're an intelligent guy, and if I can understand western viewpoints (that's how I criticise it!), you can also understand eastern culture --- but more than everything else, you should be able (if you're sincere) to understand nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everything has been so mixed up in the society (is that willingly) --- that it is diifficult to differentiate 'science' from 'scientific institution'. The problem is basically that of English language, which uses the same term for both. But the truth is that in the society today (including the scientists and laymen alike) science is used both for the 'basics of science' for the 'methodology of science' and for the 'institution of science'.

I guess, it would help for our discussion to treat the three separately and find out what ails all of them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know I should add a statutory warning on my posts "Truth can be injurious to the health of some".

Explanation: "some" includes those who thrive on lies (read vested interest group)

 

Learning doesn't happen only in schools and universities. Even an uneducated person may know things about life that a 'scientist' would never know. Nothing can replace a person's ability to observe life on his own, through his experiences. And if you can develop that ability yourself, you can know things that universities can never teach you.

One of my friends never went to school or university, yet was invited by the German Governments to lecture in their universities --- and he was all of 17 years old. His highly intellectual parents deliberately kept him off school because they believed that schools kill our ability to observe life (truth) on our own.

 

There isn't just one scientific institution. Where do you get this idea?

There are thousands of scientific institutions, and fields.
Some of them are benevolent, healing people, saving lives, etc,
some of them are evil, polluting the world, taking its resources, making WMDs, etc.

Perhaps you could address the institutions that concern you (like I could go on about the japanese whalers), rather than pretending science is one, almighty united institution, cause its not.

 

It seems rather like you're trying to be defensive. When I say the institution of science, I don't mean a particular organisation with office bearers and all. It refers to the entire scientific institution as a whole. And while there are good people and good work being done, there are serious loopholes in the scientific system/ institution as a whole.

And stop taking the word 'western' too much to heart!

 

No doubt true, but also sure is that with only "observation of life," you will falsely think time is universal, small objects have simultaneously positions and speeds, Earth is center of the universe, have no understanding of many things, like the tides, etc. I.e. trust your "common sense" when it is wrong and generally be very ignorant of why things are as they are - prone to believe all sorts of nonsense such as "God Neptune makes the tides" etc.

Also nothing precludes a university educated person from being an astute observer of the world - good universities encourage this.

 

wel actually they are more and more designed and run to DUMB you down. to fit you ino cultur as a person who doesn't think and feel too deeply

and it isn't the knowledge you KNOW, it is what you do with it. it really pisses me off modern peopleincluding certain scientists who imply that onl they have thepoper intelligence and thus dismiss millenia of 'prescientific' insight..whicst at the SAME time deny the awful effects ths materialistic knowledge and application has had on many many peoples on this Earth, many many species on tis Eaerth, and on Earth itself. complete hypocrisy and denial and ignore-ance

 

no duendy, science does not dismiss things
they just do not put a lot of faith in stuff that
doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it

 

i'll agree with this
experience is the best teacher
but it takes education to apply it properly

 

I thought that was TV's role in modern life.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A self-educated person should read books you know.

 

right. so 'evidence' is what needs REALLY looking at. cause the way i sees it, that term as applied particularly by MATERIALISTIC science acts as a form of impasse towards a deeper understanding of things. AND that attitude denigrates other forms of relationship with reality which may prescientific peoples experienced/experience, and non-scientific people

 

ohhh, itis it is. you have to begin seeing the connections. the pattern where everything connects. in this case the pattern of oppression......so see that institutions all share same philosophy. te materilistic philosophy. dont take my word for it. explore it fo yourself

 

perfectness is subjective to the beholder of the believe system that is there ego/mind state,



peace.

 

But there is NO "scientific institution" as a whole.
So your post is based on a false premise.
There are many fields, many categeries of organisations, companies, etc.
You can't lump together all the people who use science into one group - when most have nothing to do with each other, other than using the scientific method.
If you say there is, what is it called? Just science?

 

You seem to know very little about how social institutions work. Sure all these individual organsiations are bound to each other through a common institution. E.g. they all follow more or less a definite procedure, they all get their 'licences' and funding from the establishment, they all seek to publish their findings in selected reputed scientific journals, they are all hand in hand when it comes to serving the interests of those in power.

You might just as well say that religion is not an institution. It is just made up of individual churches, and various Christians who pray on their own.

 

Totally wrong. Where do you come up with this rubbish buddha1?

What "common institution" are they "bound to each other through"???
They may all aim to follow the scientific method, and proper process yes,
but what makes you think they all get their "licences and funding" from the same establishment?
What establishment? What establishment provides all of these funds? More rubbish.

They all get their qualifications from different registered education institutions (e.g. universities) and licenses are registered by joining various national or state organisations, depending on the field.
It is very difficult to get funding from the government, there is a huge application process etc.

How are they all hand in hand? Actually, many compete with each other.

Go on, if there is one almighty "establishment", then can you name it?
Name any of them?


Your not going to start with duendy's education/military industrial/government conspiracy are you?

Just goes to show the limits of your "self taught knowledge", and your total lack of experience. Where in your imagination did you get this idea that there is a scientific "institution" (singular) or an establishment?