Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life

Enoc said:
Scientists today behave a lot like bureaucrats and not much like real scientists. They don't want progress and they don't want to discover what's really out there.

That's why we have seen no much real progress over the last decade in our understanding of questions like "what is the origin of human consciousness?", "what is life and what is the origin of life?" and "is there life after death?" and questions such as "is death really the end of everything (an eternal oblivion)"?

There's still a lot we don't know about the universe we live in and that's because of the scientific bureaucracy which doesn't want progress and to discover what's really out there.
Click to expand...

Agreed

Although this is also why I read those who think outside the box of the mainstream thought

I learn more and these books I read gives a different perspective on this or that

Which to me is important

Why ?

Because doctrine or dogma or paradigm

Limits understanding , knowledge and progress
 
Last edited:
Enoc said:
Scientists today behave a lot like bureaucrats and not much like real scientists. They don't want progress and they don't want to discover what's really out there.

That's why we have seen no much real progress over the last decade in our understanding of questions like "what is the origin of human consciousness?", "what is life and what is the origin of life?" and "is there life after death?" and questions such as "is death really the end of everything (an eternal oblivion)"?

There's still a lot we don't know about the universe we live in and that's because of the scientific bureaucracy which doesn't want progress and to discover what's really out there.
Click to expand...



Rubbish...Unadulterated rubbish.
There are three reasons why science in general may not be as advanced as we should be...
[1] The total control of the Church quite a while back....
[2] Political situations and Earthly problems....
[3] Economics.........
 
river said:
Agreed

Although this is also why I read those who think outside the box of the mainstream thought

I learn more and these books I read gives a different perspective on this or that

Which to me is important

Why ?

Because doctrine or dogma or paradigm

Limits understanding , knowledge and progress
Click to expand...


More rubbish.
Common sense and logic will tell you, most new discoveries have been achieved by mainstream scientists thinking outside the box.
Then those ideas/discoveries undergo peer review and are accepted into mainstream beliefs and models.
But you have been told that before, and it interferes with your beliefs re giants, Aliens, UFO's and a myriad of other nonsense.
 
paddoboy said:
More rubbish.
Common sense and logic will tell you, most new discoveries have been achieved by mainstream scientists thinking outside the box.
Then those ideas/discoveries undergo peer review and are accepted into mainstream beliefs and models.
But you have been told that before, and it interferes with your beliefs re giants, Aliens, UFO's and a myriad of other nonsense.
Click to expand...

what mainstream scientist thought outside the box ?

Peer review means nothing if those on the board of the peer review are mainstream scientists themselves
 
One must first learn what is already known in a scientific field before he attempts to make a game changing proposal. One the other hand, for us that publish in peer reviewed journals, it is known that journals avoid to publish controversial findings because they are afraid of losing their status if something goes wrong. Additionally, publishing in a peer reviewed journal might be a very nerve breaking process that may last more than a year, especially if you try to publish in journals with high impact factors. Many times your patience gets seriously challenged and you are one step from stop doing research. There are many interesting ideas outside the maistream, but unfortunately all alternatives to peer review initiatives have failed till now because everytime a new repository launches, a significant amount of papers about ufos, aliens, telepathy, dragons, flat earth and other mambo wambo are posted that even if there are some good ideas there by respectable and knowledgable scientists, they lose credibility because they are with a bad company. Hence, pseudoscience is the best weapon that peer review has on its side and i dont see how this is going to change.
 
There is an easy way to distinguish between pseudoscience and science: one is often about interactions being instantaneous, guess which one it is!
 
Exactly! And to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, nowadays theories of everything and cures for cancer seems to be like a...es! Everybody has one!!
 
One can do a simple experiment to show how the fundamental premises of the sciences of life, are half baked. Technically this make it socially acceptable pseudo-science, that gets a pass.

If we take away a single molecular species from the cell; water, nothing in the cell will work. Life becomes as inanimate as a rock down to each molecule and ion. Next, we substitute the missing water with alternate solvents to see what happens. What we will find is very few isolated things work. However, nothing global like life will appear even with all the organics of life in place.

Anyone with common sense would conclude there is no single molecule in the cell or in life that has such a global impact on everything that makes up life. Water is need for the DNA, for ions and for the global integration called life. Water has even more impact than DNA since the DNA itself needs water or it is useless as a template.

The question is, why isn't water given the top dog status, when it comes to any explanation of life, seeing nothing else in the living state has the same global impact as water? Also it has no substitute. Does leaving out such as pivotal variable like water, make the current science, pseudo-science? The traditions are incomplete, not in a tiny detail, but in the most globally impactful variable, yet why is what is being used not called pseudo? Maybe someone can explain the dual standard? Does political science decide what is called pseudo sort of like science PC using an irrational standard.

There is a socially acceptable pseudo science connected to alternate life, that is often used to refute the water observation. Alternate life has never been proven any better than big foot, but still gets promoted to science to avoid answer the water question and pseudo science.

Why is leaving out a main variable not called pseudo-science. Is it because casino math can be used to make predictions and therefore cloud this truth? Is biology actually applied science and not pure science since leaving out water makes it impure, but impure or not the traditions have practical use? How does this impact extrapolation like evolution, if you start with a faulty main premise?
 
Since everybody knows that life needs a lot of water, your point is not clear to me WW. What is the water question that you are talking about?
 
Enoc said:
Scientists today behave a lot like bureaucrats and not much like real scientists. They don't want progress and they don't want to discover what's really out there.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you haven't talked to too many scientists lately. Or read anything written by scientists or science journalists.

That's why we have seen no much real progress over the last decade in our understanding of questions like "what is the origin of human consciousness?", "what is life and what is the origin of life?" and "is there life after death?" and questions such as "is death really the end of everything (an eternal oblivion)"?
Click to expand...

Human consciousness is an active field of research. Look up "neuroscience", for example. The origin of life is also the subject of continued speculation and research. As for life after death, there appears to be no good evidence for it. I'm not sure how you'd go about researching something when you haven't established that it exists yet.

There's still a lot we don't know about the universe we live in and that's because of the scientific bureaucracy which doesn't want progress and to discover what's really out there.
Click to expand...

I'm interested: what do you think the scientific bureaucracy has to gain by stopping progress? What's in it for the scientists?
 
Pssssst Wellwisher, science knows that water is essential for life. How is it possible that you missed this obvious fact?
 
Le Repteux said:
Since everybody knows that life needs a lot of water, your point is not clear to me WW. What is the water question that you are talking about?
Click to expand...

Ah, many of us have wondered about that over the years………….

Ask him about entropy while you're at it…….heh, heh……….:rolleyes:
 
I always take for granted that people are all nice, and also that they all have flies on the ceiling, especially when they keep the door open like me! :D
 
↑
Peer review means nothing if those on the board of the peer review are mainstream scientists themselves
Click to expand...

Rubbish:
Like the cocky on the biscuit tin: You ain't in it.
Click to expand...

I see

The thing is , peer review needs the balance between what is mainstream thinking and non-stream thinking in all the sciences
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top