or: The problem with Western science
- Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
- The dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.
- A term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
- The view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society.
Or, as the website Scientism Central puts it:
Scientism is the worldview which holds that only science is capable of making meaningful statements about all phenomena. It is a philosophical extension of materialism and logical positivism. Unlike science, scientism is a belief system with no rational basis which depends entirely on the faith of its adherents.
Even Wikipedia gets this one right:
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
In other words, scientism is the religion of science. Science, the tool (based on the scientific method), must be distinguished from the beliefs of its most fanatical adherents. Similarly, Islam, the religion, is not necessarily most accurately represented by its most fanatical adherents, regardless of how much noise said adherents may make or how much attention they may receive.
As pioneering physicist Tom Campbell puts it, science has become the "fundamental religion, if you will, of Western culture", in the sense that "the priests of old used to tell the people what to believe, what was right, how did it work...", just as now the "high priests of science" have reached the holy position of having the ability to "tell us in Western culture what to believe", which "most of the people won't think about" anymore, because "they've gotten the word from the people who know".
The belief that science holds all the answers is no different from the belief that any other particular religion holds all the answers. Like any religion, Scientism holds a number of fundamental dogmas — i.e. beliefs its adherents take on faith, rather than logic and reason.
Scientism is more pernicious, more occult, in that it does not recognize itself as a religion — its adherents completely oblivious to the more accurate description of their fundamental (unconscious) beliefs as dogmatic rather than rational.
Science is an incredibly fragile edifice, which if it weren't for its ability to hand its findings on to technologists to make pretty things, it would have to take its place somewhere to the left of... oh I don't know, homeopathy, accupressure, something like that. In other words, it is not a meta-theory, it has not got truth by the jugular; it has a bunch of fishy mathematical formulae, which it's flailing you with, but I think that serious revision of probability theory will have to take place....
Terence Mckenna heckled about science, maths, probability theory and Kurt Gödel
The scientific correlate to political correctness is scientific correctness:
Scientific "Correctness" vs. Scientific Progress | Space News
[Published on Mar 9, 2019 by ThunderboltsProject] In this adaptation of a recent Thunderbolts Picture of the Day article, author Mel Acheson explores how a phenomenon he calls "scientific correctness" can ultimately impede scientific progress.
The last bit is a perfect summary worth quoting:
Scientific correctness rejects old paradigms as "wrong", and their proponents as stupid or evil. There can only be one "right" paradigm. With domains of validity, many paradigms can be accepted as true within their limits. Their intelligibility, and the intelligence of their innovators can be appreciated. Science becomes a toolbox with many tools — that is, paradigms, that can be chosen according to their appropriateness for solving particular problems. Geocentrism for siding a house; heliocentrism for sending a robot to Mars; something yet to be worked out for explaining quasars.
Scientific correctness masquerades in the dress of science, but it's only a mannequin without the vitality of science. In contrast with the three aspects of cognition, scientific correctness refuses to look at new observations, refrains from considering new ideas, and disdains to verify new insights. It's essentially anti-intelligent. It confuses verification with conformity. It replaces the innovations of intelligence with the parroting of dogma. It lacks the provisionality to keep science always on the move. It's a tyrant of stasis.
Confusing verification (truth) with conformity (dogma) in all aspects of society, including science, is the cornerstone achievement of the control system. The "central authority", as it were, on this "verification, not truth" intellectual trap, is Wikipedia.
Scientism from the pseudo-skeptical perspective
Scientism is a topic of major contention in the philosophy of science and philosophy in general. While often used as a term of abuse, it is also used in a descriptive sense to refer to any philosophy that treats science as the only means of acquiring knowledge (for various definitions of "knowledge"). For this reason, scientism is often associated with logical positivism, which attempted to do away with metaphysics entirely. The role of scientism in modernity is also a point of debate in social theory. Postmodernism in particular sought to critique scientism.
Scientism or implicit scientistic attitudes are often characterized by a conflation of moral and scientific progress, an overzealous application of simplistic reductionist methodology and, especially in the social sciences, the logical fallacy of reification, in which an abstract metric is treated as something "real." It also tends to be accompanied by loads of sciencey technobabble.
Rationally speaking, one should realize that science (in its proper meaning) deals with analyzing empirical evidence logically and deducing objective facts: It does not take an active role in determining what one SHOULD do or how they MUST act, that would be Hume's law in action; nor does it deal with subjective thought systems (ranging from arts to moral codes) or ideologies in general.
Rationally speaking, one should realize that science (in its proper meaning) deals with analyzing empirical evidence logically and deducing objective facts, based on the assumption that reality exists objectively, separate from self.
On top of that fundamental assumption is the assumption of physicalism (fundamentalist-materialism) — the central dogma of scientism.
Metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology
Before we can define and properly analyze the idea/assumption of physicalism, we have to define its parent ideas. Let's thus begin with Wikipedia's definition of metaphysics and its subset subjects, ontology and epistemology:
Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it, although the term is not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:
- Ultimately, what is there?
- What is it like?
A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist or a metaphysician. The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central focus of metaphysics, but this may be questioned.
Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. Some philosophers of science, such as the neo-positivists, say that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics, while other philosophers of science strongly disagree.
What exactly are these "basic categories of being", that Wikipedia, the most authoritative source of authoritative knowledge, states that ontology investigates?
Ontology [onto- (from the Greek ὄν "being; that which is"), and -logia (-λογία "science, study, theory")] is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
Again note these "basic categories of being"... which are what exactly?
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article possibly contains original research. (April 2012)
This article needs attention from an expert in Philosophy. (November 2008)
In metaphysics (in particular, ontology), the different kinds or ways of being are called categories of being or simply categories. To investigate the categories of being is to determine the most fundamental and the broadest classes of entities. A distinction between such categories, in making the categories or applying them, is called an ontological distinction.
Noticing the non-article nature of the article, someone posted this comment on the Talk page:
Called for an expert
As a major topic in metaphysics, perhaps the biggest, it strikes me how poor this page is. It is clearly a mish-mash of different writers using inconsistent terminology (the poor quality is even reflected in the article's title: the article is called "category of being," even though the bolded word in the opening sentence is "categories of being." Before I added it, searching for "ontological scheme" did not even redirect here.
I think an expert should rewrite the whole thing, starting off by giving the goal (to create a minimal, exhaustive, and exclusive list of all the fundamental kinds (no universal negative categories, or disjunctive categories) of things that exist) - i.e. a category has to "earn" a place on the list by proving itself to be irreducible to other categories, or capable of being eliminated entirely. In the second part, s/he should then list the categories that have been argued to exist (be generous in this part, since reductive/eliminative arguments will come next). And in the third part, s/he should discuss arguments for/against certain categories e.g. Hume argued that space and time don't "deserve" a category on the list because they are only constructs of the human mind.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by KSchutte (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 January 2007
And with this degree of confusion at the most fundamental definitional framework, we attempt to define epistemology:
Epistemology (ἐπιστήμη, episteme-knowledge, understanding; λόγος, logos-study of) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. The term "epistemology" was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier [in 1854].
So, in summary, as a general idea, metaphysics asks "what is?", ontology asks "what is reality, what is real, what is the nature of that which is?", and epistemology asks "what is true, what is knowledge?". In the objective reality metaparadigm — the intellectual paradigm that the Western mind has imbided in for centuries (especially since Newton) — the idea of ontology has become increasingly unapproachable while epistemology has been the main focus, particularly since the scientific revolution. This mindset is reflected by the most esteemed scientists in Western culture:
I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of experiment.
In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical. Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of physical and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.
Physicalism is closely related to materialism. Physicalism grew out of materialism with the success of the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms are often used interchangeably, although they are sometimes distinguished, for example on the basis of physics describing more than just matter (including energy and physical law). Common arguments against physicalism include both the philosophical zombie argument and the multiple observers argument, that the existence of a physical being may imply zero or more distinct conscious entities.
We have unconsciously imbibed the ontology of science, where we have mind firmly separated out from the world. But in an earlier age, mind and matter would seem to be alloyed together throughout nature.
Alan Watts explains the problem of physicalism (fundamentalist-materialism), without using the term, calling it "the myth of the purely mechanical universe":
Alan Watts ~ Are We Really Honest With Ourselves
Can action ever bring about freedom from this chain of cause-effect? I have done something in the past; I have had experience, which obviously conditions my response today; and today's response conditions tomorrow. That is the whole process of karma, cause and effect; and obviously, though it may temporarily give pleasure, such a process of cause and effect ultimately leads to pain. That is the real crux of the matter: Can thought be free? Thought or action that is free does not produce pain, does not bring about conditioning. That is the vital point of this whole question. So, can there be action unrelated to the past? Can there be action not based on idea? Idea is the continuation of yesterday in a modified form, and that continuation will condition tomorrow, which means action based on idea can never be free. As long as action is based on idea, it will inevitably produce further conflict. Can there be action unrelated to the past? Can there be action without the burden of experience, the knowledge of yesterday? As long as action is the outcome of the past, action can never be free, and only in freedom can you discover what is true. What happens is that, as the mind is not free, it cannot act; it can only react, and reaction is the basis of our action. Our action is not action but merely the continuation of reaction because it is the outcome of memory, of experience, of yesterday's response. So, the question is, can the mind be free from its conditioning? - Krishnamurti, J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life
Empirical reductionism and the scientific dictatorship
The scientific enterprise is the epistemological framework of scientism — which excludes all ideas beyond the scope and reach of (the method of) science. Scientism's epistemological view of (the idea of) knowledge is empiricism:
Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions; empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification." One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical research.
Let's reiterate this pertinent quote highlighting the degree to which empiricism shapes the epistemology of Western culture:
I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of experiment.
In an article titled Manipulating Matter: The Scientific Dictatorship as a Project in the Reconfiguration of Reality (2005), Phillip D. Collins explains the idea of a technocracy and its relation to physicalist empiricism (or "radical empiricism"):
In the article entitled “The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship“, we examined the transmogrification of the elite’s religious power structure into a technocratic oligarchy legitimized predominantly by science. The history and background of this “scientific dictatorship“ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry. In this article, we shall examine the “scientific dictatorship“ as an enormous project in the re-sculpting of reality itself.
Freemason Aldous Huxley coined the term “scientific dictatorship“ and presented an allegorized version of the concept in his famous roman ‘a clef entitled Brave New World. Huxley was mentored by Freemason H.G. Wells, who also presented a fictionalized “scientific dictatorship“ under the appellation of the “Technocracy.“ This is an interesting designation for a world government managed by functional elites and scientists. It is derived from the Greek word techne, which means craft. Given Wells’ membership in the Craft of Freemasonry, the synchronicity becomes apparent.
Moreover, the term craft is associated with witchcraft or wicca. From the term wicca, one derives the word wicker. Examining this word a little closer, Michael Hoffman explains: “The word wicker has many denotations and connotations, one of which is ‘to bend,’ as in the ‘bending’ of reality'“. This is especially interesting when considering the words of Mark Pesce, co-inventor of Virtual Reality Modeling Language. Pesce writes: “The enduring archetype of techne within the pre-Modern era is magic, of an environment that conforms entirely to the will of being“.
Techne is also from whence the word technology is derived. The significance of this fact becomes evident when Pesce opines:Each endpoint of techne has an expression in the modern world as a myth of fundamental direction — the mastery of matter, and the collection of spirit. The myth of matter comes to its end as the absolute expression of will as artifact; in a word, nanotechnology.
Herein is the final objective of New World Order … the reconfiguration of reality through the sorcery of technology.
Radical Empiricism: The Epistemological Pretext for Re-Sculpting Reality
As we have established in previous articles, most of contemporary science is predicated upon empiricism. This is the epistemological stance that all knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses. Lyndon LaRouche explains the inherent flaws of empiricism:By the nature of our processes of sense-perception, our direct perception of the world “outside our skins“ (so to speak) does not show us that world “outside our skins,“ but, rather, the impact of that unperceived real world upon the biology of our mental-sensory processes. In other words, the shadows on the wall of Plato’s Cave.
Thus, the world becomes little more than an ever-shifting pliancy of impressions. All that a percipient surveys is an amorphous amalgam of “shadows.“ It comes as little surprise that an exclusively empirical approach relegates causality to the realm of metaphysical fantasy. The obviation of causality holds enormous ramifications for science.
What is perceived as A causing B could be merely a consequence of circumstantial juxtaposition. Although temporal succession and spatial proximity are axiomatic, causal connection is not. Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible. Given the absence of causality, all of a scientist’s findings must be taken upon faith. Ironically, science relies on the affirmation of such cause and effect relationships. This is all one can deduce while working under the paradigm of radical empiricism. Thus, the elite merely exchanged one form of mysticism for another. It comes as little surprise that, within certain occult circles, contemporary science is considered sorcery disseminated on the popular level. For instance, Satanic high priest Anton LaVey regarded science and technology as “sanctioned, but ineffectual ‘occultism’“.
In fact, science has become a new form of sorcery for the manipulation of matter. According to the epistemology of empiricism, reality is little more than a quagmire of impressions. It is analogous to a holograph, the fabric of which is pliable enough to be manipulated. Thus, reality becomes the ever-shifting canvas upon which scientists paint whatever they wish. The scientist’s role in this reconfiguration of reality was delineated in an esoteric tract entitled The Way of Light. Authored by Comenius in 1668, the manifesto was dedicated to the British Royal Society. Researcher Michael Hoffman elaborates:In it, Comenius addressed the first formal scientists as “illuminati“ and outlined their scientific purpose, “…which is to secure…the empire of the human mind over matter“ [emphasis added].
Years later, Bertrand Russell would recapitulate the “illuminati’s“ (i.e., scientists’) role in the establishment of “the empire of the human mind over matter.“ Redefining science as an instrument of radical empiricism, Russell wrote:The way in which science arrives at its beliefs is quite different from that of medieval theology. Experience has shown that it is dangerous to start from general principles and proceed deductively, both because the principles may be untrue and because the reasoning based upon them may be fallacious. Science starts, not from large assumptions, but from particular facts discovered by observation or experiment. From a number of such facts a general rule is arrived at, of which, if it is true, the facts in question are instances… Science thus encourages abandonment of the search for absolute truth, which belongs to any theory that can be successfully employed in inventions or in predicting the future. “Technical“ truth is a matter of degree: a theory from which more successful inventions and predictions spring is truer than one which gives rise to fewer. “Knowledge“ ceases to be a mental mirror of the universe, and becomes merely a practical tool in the manipulation of matter [emphasis added].
In other words, science or “knowledge“ becomes the instrument by which the “illuminati“ re-sculpts reality. It also becomes an epistemological weapon against the minds of men, wielded by the proverbial Descartean “evil demon.“ This was the central precept of Weishaupt’s Illuminati and the conceit of the Technocracy today: God was not in the beginning, but evolved from Man in the end. According to this conceit, Man could recreate Eden without the God. It comes as little surprise that sci-fi predictive programmer and British intelligence asset Arthur C. Clarke commented: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.“
The whole idea of a technocracy, or scientific dictatorship, is that a "scientific" (scientistic) elite, arbitrarily dubbed "experts" (i.e. highly-"authoritative" people), will gradually/increasingly/acceleratingly replace the "decision-making process" of the people in "positions of power". The belief in the implicit "authority" of science is literally being used as the most significant tool for control, as Jerry Day of FreedomTaker.com brilliantly explains in the following video:
Our New Technocratic Lords
[Published on Sep 25, 2015] Science and Technology as instruments of social control
It's worth noting also that the idea that Bertrand Russell — who "redefin[ed] science as an instrument of radical empiricism" (and who in 1946 thought it necessary to use the fear of nuclear weapons to force all nations to submit to a United Nations dictatorship) — had that "particular facts discovered by observation or experiment" from which "science starts", is indeed based on a large assumption: that of an objective reality that is not part of a subjective self.
With science (the scientific process) largely in the hands of (or under the mind control of) the control system, transhumanism is the seemingly inevitable result, which, combined with the move toward technocracy, may result in such extreme experiences of limitation and darkness as that experienced by the Greys, who — according to Bashar — are mutated humans from a parallel reality Earth who transhumanistically mutated themselves to the point of extinction — but not before "abducting" humans in our parallel reality to combine their genetic material with ours to create Human-Grey hybrid species (of which Bashar's species, the Essassani, are the third generation).
Technology is only ever as dangerous as the mind of whomever wields it, and if those who hold the reigns of power in this world can in any way be appraised according to their track record, then for the bulk of mankind, transhumanism presents itself as a very dire future indeed.
Transhumanism represents a technological pseudo-utopian evolution toward a whole new level, or degree, of control of human consciousness — so much so that it is representative of the general theme of the negative energy timelines, in contrast to the positive (organic) ascensional timelines wherein human consciousness shifts from 3rd to higher densities of awareness.
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.
Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.
The idea of a "scientific consensus" is the most "authoritative" of ideas, because science is believed to be, axiomatically as per the reconfigurators of reality, the only ontological tool worth paying attention to. All else is dubbed "pseudo-science" — especially when it inevitably is presented to the altar of science by unconscious adherents of scientism, as if science were some kind of arbiter of truth.
But I don't think that science—that the purpose of science is to understand reality. (This may go to what you're saying.) I think the purpose of science is to, uh, advance technology. I don't think reality can be understood, and that it's absolute hubris for science to, you know, cloak itself in the mantle of philosophy. All it's for is to make better toys — or if you're nuts, better weapons. And, uh, ultimately there's not going to be any closure, in the effort to understand. ....
Any ideas that have (or are believed to have by repeatedly "authoritatively" declaring it as so) any degree of "scientific consensus" are thus automatically taken to be true by the cultural consumers — the minds "enslaved" by the "authority"-based control system.
Most notably, the politicians and media have created the impression that there is a "scientific consensus" about "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming", trying to turn the causality around, as if it weren't the political agendas that created the "scientific consensus" conformalism.
Misconceptions about science
The psychedelic skeptical philosopher Terence McKenna looks at the big picture of science and our relationship to it:
The Big Picture (Terence McKenna)
McKenna gives his views on biology, complexity, time and novelty, followed by a speciated perspective on humans and our place in history and time. "We have to try to promote the idea that anxiety is inappropriate, anxiety poisons the impulse to action. And I really think this is going to the task of the high tech alternative culture, is to provide an optomisitic vision, because you see the people who run the world are becoming more and more panic stricken; because a world is ending, their world is ending. The world of the shell game, and the international corporation, and the propegandized electorate, and no substitute vision is being discussed at the upper eschalons of the control mechanism of this society, change is all coming from the grassroots. The people at the top are too paralyzed with the poisen they have imbibed by feeding at the trough of the old order, they can't think their way out of this dilemna, in fact they have to pay guys with pony tails to turn on the machines in the morning they are so distant from the things they rule".
As Watts and McKenna most eloquently elucidate, what science (scientism) offers is really actually a very bland and extremely disempowering picture: an unintelligent, insentient, fundamentally dumb, purely mechanical universe that has no capacity to care for sentience/consciousness that emerges out of its physical processes on a fluke.
The orthodox view is that we're a chance anomaly, an excentricity in the cosmic game. But if the conservation of novelty is what the universe is about, then we are as pride and joy, it's crown jewel, the first-born son, and heir apparent. And, the other thing is, this ingression, or this movement into novelty, has been going on since the beginning of the universe, but always ever-faster. Ever faster.
So, in the early universe, once things settled down after the big bang, it was dull for a long, long time, I mean it wasn't much happening, there weren't even stars. There was just hydrogen aggregating, and eventually there were aggregates of hydrogen so large that the pressures at the centers of those aggregates of hydrogen caused a new property to emerge: fusion. And fusion cooks out heavy elements, like iron, and sulfur, and carbon. And when carbon cooks out, new emergent properties become possible. Molecular chemistry rather than simply atomic systems comes into play. Well then elaborate that for a few billion years and you get long-chain polymers. They're like super-molecules, and they have the quality or the ability to template, and reproduce themselves.
Well so suddenly you get a whole new emergent domain in nature. The domain of the self-copying, self-replicating molecules, and then they begin to embed themselves in membranes and so forth, and then you get nucleated cells, and then colonies of nucleated cells — and from there to advanced mammals is just a matter of time. And then, the organs of locomotion seem to have been perfected. You know, the fastest animals in the world can run 7 mph (something like that). And so then, the development seems to concentrate on the human nervous system.
The coordination no longer of space, but of information. Information becomes the new coinage. Advanced binocular vision systems evolve, pack signalling systems evolve in social animals, and then at some point the level of complexity is sufficient to cross a boundary, into true language — true representation of the past and the present, through symbolic activity. In each case these stages are happening faster and faster and faster. Language is probably less than 100,000 years old; it may be half that age. Well good grief, that's less than 3,000 generations in the past. Language? That's yesterday! And yet since the inception of language, look at what has happened. You know, urbanism, global conquest of the environment, mathematical conquest of nature... we can call down the fires that burn in the hearts of stars to the deserts of this planet, or if necessary — "necessary" — down upon the heads of our enemies. That's an extraordinary feat for protoplasm to be able to undertake.
And so I think this accelerating novelty indicates that we are on the brink of just going down the novelty well, and becoming as unrecognizable to ourselves as we would be to Tyrannosaurus rex, if it were introduced to us as the heirs to its struggles and dreams.
Wikipedia's article about theoretical physics defines three types of scientific theories:
Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.
The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations. For example, while developing special relativity, Albert Einstein was concerned with the Lorentz transformation which left Maxwell's equations invariant, but was apparently uninterested in the Michelson–Morley experiment on Earth's drift through a luminiferous ether. On the other hand, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, previously an experimental result lacking a theoretical formulation.
Mainstream theories (sometimes referred to as central theories) are the body of knowledge of both factual and scientific views and possess a usual scientific quality of the tests of repeatability, consistency with existing well-established science and experimentation. There do exist mainstream theories that are generally accepted theories based solely upon their effects explaining a wide variety of data, although the detection, explanation, and possible composition are subjects of debate.
The proposed theories of physics are usually relatively new theories which deal with the study of physics which include scientific approaches, means for determining the validity of models and new types of reasoning used to arrive at the theory. However, some proposed theories include theories that have been around for decades and have eluded methods of discovery and testing. Proposed theories can include fringe theories in the process of becoming established (and, sometimes, gaining wider acceptance). Proposed theories usually have not been tested.
Fringe theories include any new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established and some proposed theories. It can include speculative sciences. This includes physics fields and physical theories presented in accordance with known evidence, and a body of associated predictions have been made according to that theory.
Some fringe theories go on to become a widely accepted part of physics. Other fringe theories end up being disproven. Some fringe theories are a form of protoscience and others are a form of pseudoscience. The falsification of the original theory sometimes leads to reformulation of the theory.
By defining the idea of "mainstream" theories, scientific theories become, by definition, subject to desires representative of the control agendas of the control system, because a scientific theory is by definition not "mainstream" (sufficiently-"authoritative") if it doesn't fit within existing stagnated outdated pre-Internet paradigms represented by the "mainstream" (sufficiently-"authoritative") theories and supported by the energy/effort/time/money put into their development by the dogmatic conformalist "scientific" community that receives "grants" (stolen "tax" money) by people who call themselves "government".
Make no mistake about it: the overturning of a scientific paradigm is a political act, and it has to do with reputations, and tenure, and publication, and people who have built their lives defending something they now see under severe attack.
By paying attention exclusively to disempowering dominance-based "authoritative" instrumentalities sanctioned by institutional dogmatic groupthink, scientists, physicists, and cosmologists are completely missing the sources of information — especially Bashar — that leave few if any unsolved mysteries of "theoretical physics" and are able to convincingly explain all the numerous so-called "unsolved problems in physics" — the process of solving of which is and will always remain in a stagnated state as long as they are approached from within the artificial parameters of the objective reality metaparadigm and (the subset assumption of) physicalism (fundamentalist-materialism).
In terms of cosmogony (the origin of that which exists), scientism's cosmogonical view is called materialism (also known as physicalism or fundamentalist-materialism), which is contrasted with creationism in the Abrahamic religions, and with emanationism in the Eastern philosophies (ontological lenses):
Emanationism is an idea in the cosmology or cosmogony of certain religious or philosophical systems. Emanation, from the Latin emanare meaning "to flow from" or "to pour forth or out of", is the mode by which all things are derived from the First Reality, or Principle. All things are derived from the first reality or perfect God by steps of degradation to lesser degrees of the first reality or God, and at every step the emanating beings are less pure, less perfect, less divine. Emanationism is a transcendent principle from which everything is derived, and is opposed to both Creationism (wherein the universe is created by a sentient God who is separate from creation) and materialism (which posits no underlying subjective and/or ontological nature behind phenomena being immanent).
The funniest thing is that scientism's cosmogony is based on the incredulously absurd idea that "everything emerges out of nothing" — a free miracle — which is what the Big Bang theory is, as the methodologically skeptical philosopher Terence McKenna most eloquently demonstrates:
Terence McKenna pokes fun at the "Big Bang" theory
Terence Mckenna has some fun with the big bang theory, discusses the idea of singularities and the historical process. Excerpt from the talk "Millinarianism and Utopianism" featuring Terence Mckenna, Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph Abraham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LC0Lr_vK_U
... This singularity would have the character of an attractor. Now I grant that it's irrational, but our little discussion of the birth of the universe should convince you that it's all irrational. That doesn't get you tossed out of the game — that's the name of the game. ...
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.
The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite.
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
The ideal scientist thinks like a poet and only later works like a bookkeeper.
Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: "On to God!"
Mystics, contrary to religionists, are always saying that reality is not two things — God and the world — but one thing, consciousness.
Men talk of the extravagances and frenzies that have been produced by mysticism; they are a mere drop in the bucket. In the main, and from the beginning of time, mysticism has kept men sane.
[+BogrollT] Sure, look at Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. In 1847 he proposed that doctors should wash their hands before they deliver babies. He implemented this in his own hospital and the infant mortality rate dropped dramatically. Despite this, his theories went against the entrenched scientific consensus, so they THREW HIM IN AN INSANE ASYLUM where he was BEATEN TO DEATH by the guards. Look it up. The scientific community as a whole doesn't know shit about fuck, they just use very big and impressive words to couch their speculation. And on the rare occasion that one of them DOES get on to something, the rest of them all band together and kill him, and then a century later, they lavish posthumous awards on his grave.
[+ConnorJohn] It means "beyond the scope of science." Science is a very, very, very useful tool for looking at and understanding the world, one of many tools, but it was never meant to be commercialized and politicized and popularized as the one and only means of looking at and understanding reality. Science is a good lens. But it is not pointed at the whole of the universe, it is only pointed at the infinitesimal parts that we have figured out how to measure and observe, which is probably less than 1% of everything. We make fools of ourselves if we think that what science has shown us so far is all there is to be seen. Let science run it's course for another thousand years, and maybe by then it'll be up to looking at as much as 5% of reality. But as for right now, any scientist who proclaims anything with any certainty is just being a dickhead.
Science must be, above all else, honest, if we really wanna get to the bottom of things. Understanding that our understanding might be wrong is essential, and trying to figure out the ways we may be mistaken is the only way that science can help us find our way to the truth... or, at least, the nearest approximation to it. Science learns. We meander a bit as we use it, but in the long run, we get closer and closer to understanding reality — and that is the strength of science.
If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. Rather, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete.
Our scientific capabilities have outrun our spiritual capabilities. We now have guided missiles and misguided men.
The refutation of philosophic materialism is as easy as stepping off the sidewalk. An astonishing amount of professional nonsense has been written to obscure this fact. Physics has boxed itself in. Its pronouncements about the constituents of matter and the so-called laws of motion result in a series of absurdities only a charlatan could defend.
Dogmas take endless forms, and when you can persuade different people to hold opposing dogmas, the manipulation of conflict and control through "divide and rule" becomes easy. It is happening today in the same way — more so, in fact — as it has throughout human history.
Intelligence Squared - A breif History of Intelligence + Everything (Robert Anton Wilson)
Robert Anton Wilson gives an overview of the evolution of intelligence, how it is increased, and some historical steps that greatly improved or diminished its evolution.
Boundary Dissolving Paradigm Shift (Terence Mckenna)
McKenna discusses the effect of boundary dissolution in our society.
Terence Mckenna on science as a world view
Linear Subject Specific Compartmentalized Reductionist Science (Terence Mckenna)
Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing"—chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but also occurs in other fields, such as all mainstream LCDM cosmologies (Big Bang cosmologies).
Terence Mckenna - The difference between the archaic mind and the modern philsophy of materialism
Well, the great watershed difference between the archaic understanding and what is called scientific materialism is the archaic mind understood, in fact, perceived, that nature is conscious, nature is alive, nature is an organism full of intent. The goal of the archaic mind is to connect with, communicate with, and align itself to, this greater Gaian holism, which is sometimes called nature, the Great Spirit, the realm of the ancestors, but this is what the archaic mind understood and was comfortable with; and in fact it is true. Our own decision to view the universe as dead, as inanimate, as unintelligent, allowed us, permitted us to dissect it, use it, and deny its validity outside of human purpose. Now, the consequences of living like that is coming back to haunt us. You know, we have almost destroyed our home, we have almost cut the earth from beneath our own feet. So, this impulse towards the Gaianic and the archaic is a survival instinct at this point. We must give, ah, reverence and credence to nature and natures methods because no other methods will allow us to work our way out of the present mess we're in. High temperature, high energy resource extraction, commodification, mega-agriculture; we're at the end of the rope for these things. So the archaic holds answers but it only holds answers if we are willing to think of the universe as a living intelligent entity in—with which we are in partnership, not set against, but that, in fact, we are a part of a morphogenetic intent and an unfolding reality that is larger than human understanding. Imagine, larger than human understanding... (laughs)