Scientists and Pseudo-Scientists

[Baile]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Maybe you're very young. Basically, each one of us lives in our own reality, created by our beliefs and emotions.

No, not young. And maybe you're new age. Because there is in fact and at the very least a collective consciousness aspect to human reality. So there's much more that question than just everyone creating their own reality. But that's a whole other conversation.

You're didn't respond to what I wrote. I wasn't talking about new age ideas about creating our own reality. I was talking about truth versus lies. And being able to easily see when people are lying. I'm not new age but I am OLD school. I deal with questions practically and logically. And I was specifically addressing your "fake news" comment. I said, and repeat, that anyone with even the slightest bit of conscious awareness can easily spot liars and con artists. I can certainly tell when someone is passing off lies as the truth, or manipulating facts in a deceptive and untruthful way. You haven't been following politics the past two years I guess, it's particularly easy to tell these days.

[Armadodecadron]

Originally Posted by inavalan

We should be less vehement in promoting our beliefs, and less dismissive of opposing opinions, because we actually don't know, and saying after the fact things like "who would've thought", "I didn't imagine", "I didn't expect that", are explanations, not justifications. Those who have supported and promoted erroneous causes should be held accountable (proportionally) both by themselves, and by the others.

Only owning up your mistakes you can truly progress.

Quite a pickle, that. Walk lightly and no one will know you are there. Trod heavily and you'll crush precious things underfoot. If I were asked to present proof of a fundamental flaw in the human spirit, it would be this: in conviction, ignorance, and in uncertainty, inaction.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Baile

No, not young. And maybe you're new age. Because there is in fact and at the very least a collective consciousness aspect to human reality. So there's much more that question than just everyone creating their own reality. But that's a whole other conversation.

You're didn't respond to what I wrote. I wasn't talking about new age ideas about creating our own reality. I was talking about truth versus lies. And being able to easily see when people are lying. I'm not new age but I am OLD school. I deal with questions practically and logically. And I was specifically addressing your "fake news" comment. I said, and repeat, that anyone with even the slightest bit of conscious awareness can easily spot liars and con artists. I can certainly tell when someone is passing off lies as the truth, or manipulating facts in a deceptive and untruthful way. You haven't been following politics the past two years I guess, it's particularly easy to tell these days.

Not politicizing the discussion ... just a quick test: in the recent US Supreme Court nomination, did the lady who accused the judge of inappropriate sexual behavior 35 years ago, lie or not? How could you tell? Most likely, function of your past experience, or biased by your political inclination, you believed her not.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Armadodecadron

Quite a pickle, that. Walk lightly and no one will know you are there. Trod heavily and you'll crush precious things underfoot. If I were asked to present proof of a fundamental flaw in the human spirit, it would be this: in conviction, ignorance, and in uncertainty, inaction.

I don't think it is a matter of flaws in the human spirit. It is a matter of individual level of evolvement of one's soul (human spirit, or whatever you want to call that spark of consciousness that materializes and animates a human).

You can't blame a child for being ignorant, or for acting mostly instinctually. You can't blame a youth for having emotions override his/her intellect. The same applies to the human spirit. Each one the four "i" you mentioned could be a virtue, compared to their antonyms applied wrongly.

[Armadodecadron]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I don't think it is a matter of flaws in the human spirit. It is a matter of individual level of evolvement of one's soul (human spirit, or whatever you want to call that spark of consciousness that materializes and animates a human).

You can't blame a child for being ignorant, or for acting mostly instinctually. You can't blame a youth for having emotions override his/her intellect. The same applies to the human spirit. Each one the four "i" you mentioned could be a virtue, compared to their antonyms applied wrongly.

I did not blame the children in that statement, although I sometimes do. We all have our moments of weakness. I blamed the womb.

Unlike you, I do not care to divorce the mind from the spirit; I see these things as natural consequences of the other.

But you are quite right; they could be virtues. Sometimes they are. But not nearly often enough.

[AutumnGold]

In terms of scientists in labs who carry out truly cruel experiments on animals - Now that is Pseudo-Scientists.
The torture and sadness those Pseudo-Scientists inflict on living beings is disgusting.

It all comes back to Big Pharma and the huge amounts of money it pulls in - they 'need to' experiment on animals to green light medication so it can on to the market.

A healthy diet, Natural Remedies and Holistics doctors are the best avenues of real healthcare

[r6r6]

.. just a quick test: in the recent US Supreme Court nomination, did the lady ....lie or not? How could you tell?

1} voluntarily took lie detector test,


2} unless she is trained to beat a lie detector test, then the results may count as two points in favor of her accounting to best of her knowledge, as truth,


3} demeanor, and again, unless the type of person who has practiced and skilled and lying throughout her life, we fall back on what we observe plus #1 and 2 above.

As the judge instructs the jurors ---as I was one of--- I the judge, am the judge of the law, you the jurors, are the judge of the truth.

I saw another thing on tve program once that showed how must people when searching their brain to recall a memory, that they will raise the eyes and look one way --right or left--- more than the other way.

So the findings were those who looked the other less common way for truth were about to lie.

My guess is there are MRI experiments on this issue also. Again, these are generalities and average set of humans with a culture even that culture is melting pot culture like US etc.

Non scientist can practice scientific process/analysis in their approach to solving problems/conflicts etc.

Lets say we have pot of boiling water but we cannot see the source of the heat from underneath. So we dont know if it is gas flame, electric heat, or maybe the water is radioactive and heating from particles within it.

How do we the non-scientist approach what is source heating the water. We use a scientific process.

Auto mechanics, IT people if if not also doctors use a process called process of elimination, when we dont really know the correct answer to a problem.

We replace associated parts until some replaced part fixes the problem. That is more expensive way to find truth but eventually we get to the truth.

The scientific process can be practiced by any human with what ever materials/supplys that have available to them.

Consider ancient humans who did not know what the moon actually is beyond it gave off light and they may have figured out that came from the sun.

But how many of those ancients concieved of celestial objects that we on a spherical planet was orbiting?


Recently saw PBS program, "Native America". Apparrently 25,000 years ago in central Brazil these humans recorded on a large rock face the setting of the sun on the shortest day, and the other far end of the rock face the recorded the sun setting on the longest day.


The man who figured this out confirmed his theory by going to this rock face on the shortest day of the year to see of the pictographs on rock face matched with what he saw occurring as to where exactly the sun set.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

1} voluntarily took lie detector test,


2} unless she is trained to beat a lie detector test, then the results may count as two points in favor of her accounting to best of her knowledge, as truth,


3} demeanor, and again, unless the type of person who has practiced and skilled and lying throughout her life, we fall back on what we observe plus #1 and 2 above.

As the judge instructs the jurors ---as I was one of--- I the judge, am the judge of the law, you the jurors, are the judge of the truth.

I saw another thing on tve program once that showed how must people when searching their brain to recall a memory, that they will raise the eyes and look one way --right or left--- more than the other way.

So the findings were those who looked the other less common way for truth were about to lie.

My guess is there are MRI experiments on this issue also. Again, these are generalities and average set of humans with a culture even that culture is melting pot culture like US etc.

Non scientist can practice scientific process/analysis in their approach to solving problems/conflicts etc.

Lets say we have pot of boiling water but we cannot see the source of the heat from underneath. So we dont know if it is gas flame, electric heat, or maybe the water is radioactive and heating from particles within it.

How do we the non-scientist approach what is source heating the water. We use a scientific process.

Auto mechanics, IT people if if not also doctors use a process called process of elimination, when we dont really know the correct answer to a problem.

We replace associated parts until some replaced part fixes the problem. That is more expensive way to find truth but eventually we get to the truth.

The scientific process can be practiced by any human with what ever materials/supplys that have available to them.

Consider ancient humans who did not know what the moon actually is beyond it gave off light and they may have figured out that came from the sun.

But how many of those ancients concieved of celestial objects that we on a spherical planet was orbiting?


Recently saw PBS program, "Native America". Apparrently 25,000 years ago in central Brazil these humans recorded on a large rock face the setting of the sun on the shortest day, and the other far end of the rock face the recorded the sun setting on the longest day.


The man who figured this out confirmed his theory by going to this rock face on the shortest day of the year to see of the pictographs on rock face matched with what he saw occurring as to where exactly the sun set.

Applying the scientific process I'd conclude you vote democrat.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

1} voluntarily took lie detector test,


2} unless she is trained to beat a lie detector test, then the results may count as two points in favor of her accounting to best of her knowledge, as truth,


3} demeanor, and again, unless the type of person who has practiced and skilled and lying throughout her life, we fall back on what we observe plus #1 and 2 above.

As the judge instructs the jurors ---as I was one of--- I the judge, am the judge of the law, you the jurors, are the judge of the truth.

I saw another thing on tve program once that showed how must people when searching their brain to recall a memory, that they will raise the eyes and look one way --right or left--- more than the other way.

So the findings were those who looked the other less common way for truth were about to lie.

My guess is there are MRI experiments on this issue also. Again, these are generalities and average set of humans with a culture even that culture is melting pot culture like US etc.

Non scientist can practice scientific process/analysis in their approach to solving problems/conflicts etc.

Lets say we have pot of boiling water but we cannot see the source of the heat from underneath. So we dont know if it is gas flame, electric heat, or maybe the water is radioactive and heating from particles within it.

How do we the non-scientist approach what is source heating the water. We use a scientific process.

Auto mechanics, IT people if if not also doctors use a process called process of elimination, when we dont really know the correct answer to a problem.

We replace associated parts until some replaced part fixes the problem. That is more expensive way to find truth but eventually we get to the truth.

The scientific process can be practiced by any human with what ever materials/supplys that have available to them.

Consider ancient humans who did not know what the moon actually is beyond it gave off light and they may have figured out that came from the sun.

But how many of those ancients concieved of celestial objects that we on a spherical planet was orbiting?


Recently saw PBS program, "Native America". Apparrently 25,000 years ago in central Brazil these humans recorded on a large rock face the setting of the sun on the shortest day, and the other far end of the rock face the recorded the sun setting on the longest day.


The man who figured this out confirmed his theory by going to this rock face on the shortest day of the year to see of the pictographs on rock face matched with what he saw occurring as to where exactly the sun set.

Applying the "scientific process" I'd conclude you vote democrat.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Applying the "scientific process" I'd conclude you vote democrat.

I lean toward the scientific methodology, truth, moral integrity, all for one and one for all, in all existence. Why?

The alternative is doomsday for humans.