Friday, 11 August 2017

Scientific Thought is not Pre-eminent in verifying reality

Objective reality is something other than government science education which carries the normal human errors of thought, knowledge, bias and interpretation along with the limits of perception and measurement....

Secondly, science operates within a culture, operated by groups and individuals, under a government with an ideology and objectives. This means that those individuals and groups promote and engineer their own opinions, knowingly and unknowingly through their study, experiments and teachings. So when assessing 'science' claims and teachings you have to distinguish between mechanical science (which runs the functions of a society, such engineering, farming etc) and that which is ideological...and is about the preservation and propagation of the culture it resides within. As an ideology and it's leaders and proponents will express it and be influenced by it in all spheres. So in reality, every civilization and culture had their own science philosophy...but the juvenile pan-scientism cult followers of today assume that their own science culture is neutral and objective, but that is very obviously a delusion caused by their own erroneous philosophy, psychology, emotions and culture.

So 'science' or reality being true is something other than science books and supposed 'scientists' being truthful, correct or reliable... And that is the trick of the pan-scientism cult...they conflate the two.

Science history is in fact a chronology of inaccurate measurements, erroneous explanations, mistaken observations, debatable conceptions, flawed experiments and false theories. This is indeed why it is subject to continuous difference, debate and change... Supposed established facts and orthodoxy are regularly overturned and abandoned... This demonstrates that empiricism or the scientific thought is not the pre-eminent thought in verifying reality... Science is in fact dependent upon rationality, rationality is not dependent upon science and it is not established by science, but rather by reality, mental capacity and structured coherent reasoning (those matters themselves need a cause). 

The principle of causality that science also depends upon again is not established by science but is rational or a priori knowledge... the same is the case with the principle of non-contradiction... Indeed a scientist worthy of the description will not blindly follow the results of his experiments if they appear to be nonsensical...rather the superior thought method of rationality will cause him to question his results and search for error, or even abandon the results altogether if rationality demands it.

Scientists never prove anything as they would be contradicting their philosophical idol called 'doubt', they deny the reality of the degrees of knowledge dynamically associated with the degrees of evidence, coherent reasoning which can lead to rational necessity and philosophical certainty. 

Friday, 4 August 2017

We are collectively ignorant - Most things we don't know

Despite the delusions of some people, who claim to know what was happening in the universe 13 or 14 billion years ago, we don't even know what is happening now, nor yesterday, let alone thousands, millions and billions of years ago.

We can have theories, calculations, projections, estimations and all sorts of tools of investigation, but many a time the end result is conjecture as the foundations were based on conjecture. Many of our supposed hard facts are in fact built on assumptions which are not definite. But conformity, trust or blind following prevent us from subjecting our assumptions, principles and methods of judgement to critical analysis, rational investigation and intellectual rigour.

One problem is thinking that we know when we don't and another problem is not even knowing that we don't know. How many concepts are considered to be true when under even the most simple questioning exposes them to be wanting?

Slogans are short and snappy and easily transmitted but when held up to detailed criticism or even just held up in the scale of reality, carry no weight.

"We live in a free society" No we don't.... Every aspect of life is dominated by hundreds or thousands of laws, every sphere of our life is restricted.

"Science has proven such and such" No it hasn't it has performed experiments and has a working understanding, always subject to challenge and change... And who do you mean exactly by 'Science'? Who speaks for it? Are you sure it has a voice or that it says anything at all? Science education, organizations, scientists and governmental curricula and corporate funded studies performed by affilliated scientists with a mutual interest, agenda and philosophy is something other than 'reality' or 'science says'.

"There is no proof for such and such" Are you sure? You thought about all the possibilities in a sound and rigorous manner? You asked everyone on earth what they base their position on? Your perception reaches every potential place? You gathered all available knowledge on everything? You understood everything that you were told and have correctly interpreted everything available?

"I know that there is no reality to such and such, nobody has any proof" Really? So you assume that if you don't have knowledge of something then everyone else doesn't also, because their knowledge could only be equal to or less than your own?

"Such and such is nonsense" Are you certain of that? So because your own mind judges a matter to be nonsense, then that must be the case... You are sure because all of your foundations and tools of judgement are rigorously tested, proven and reliable? You have never made a mistake in their utilization? Your principles are never subject to any mistaken application?  

Just because we reject something with our minds it doesn't necessarily mean that our minds are correct. Our minds are limited and people vary greatly in their intellect or in their principles and mechanisms of thought. Just because we don't understand something, it doesn't automatically mean no-one else can understand it. We should not assume that everyone else is intellectually equal or inferior to ourselves.

It may well be that we reject and deny many things due to our extreme mental delusions, our emotional states, our lack of coherent thinking and the cultural, ideological and political influences that hinder clear judgement and prevent sound reasoning and thought.

Some things are unknowable due to their nature, somethings are known due to their nature, some things are known by many but not by few and many things are known by few and not by the many. 

Not knowing what we think we know can be as costly as not knowing what we need to know, even though we know that we don't know it. But just because we know that we don't know, it doesn't mean we can't know and just because we know and we know that we know, it doesn't mean that there isn't more to know or doesn't mean that we can't know even if we think we know that we can't know.

STARING REALITY IN THE MIRROR - Perception, Belief & Reality

Belief can be either emotional, based on feelings, conjecture, blind following etc or it can be intellectual, based on rational thought, evidence.
Reality exists, but your perception is subject to doubt, but the existence of reality is not subject to doubt. God either exists or does not exist...that is a rational fact (in fact for those who engage in rational thought the existence of God is a rational fact)... There is a knock at your can't see who or what is making the knock... It is a rational fact that something is making the knock, unless it is your mistaken perception, mishearing...but even that will have a cause also, as causality is a rational fact. People have their beliefs and perceptions but external to all of that is the truth, objective reality... So the discovery of that will not just be based on perception but rational thought, as rational thought can eliminate or affirm what is beyond the limits of perception, outside of it's scope and free from it's delusions and errors.
Your denial of the reality does not stop it existing and your ignorance of the reality does not stop it existing and your perception or knowledge of it's existence is not the cause of it's existence. One person believes God exists and another person denies that God exists, they can't both be right, due to the principle of non-contradiction... Two things which nullify the reality of one another can not coexist in the same instant. You are either alive or dead, you can not be both, unless you are talking metaphorically or referring to different attributes or using different definitions or meanings.
If people were to use rational thought to establish their beliefs they would not arrive at such false beliefs or doubtful ones. It is amazing that people use rational thought in their daily lives for trivial matters but they abandon it for the most important matters and are happy with following social-media slogans, conjecture, emotions, fashion, populist idiocy, uninformed commentators, false authority and imagination.

My video on clarity might help a little:-


We are all trying to open doors, close doors, find doors and walk through doors. Why? Because we want to get out of the place we are at and enter another place. Is it better in the next room? Will we find what we are looking for beyond the door? Is this the right door to open or is it the disaster door? 

 How many doors have we opened in the past and regretted it? How many doors did we open to find nothing inside? How many doors did we wish we had opened earlier? Did we think before opening any of these doors or did we just open the door to breathe or get a change of scenery? "Better the rubbish you know than the rubbish you don't know..." Is one of my sayings ('rubbish' is a substitute for the normal word I use) ...but we open those doors hoping not find rubbish, but is that a realistic expectation?

We walk through the door and we bring with us our own beliefs, character, objectives, perceptions, abilities, history, criteria for action, methodology, knowledge, motives, emotions, psychology, desires, instincts and thought process... So will we experience a major change when we are who we are?

Perhaps we will just bring our problems with us, maybe our main problem is 'us' or at least our conception of 'us'. 

We open the newly discovered door with excitement, but after a while we find ourselves again, we run away from one problem to another, a bit like the little guy with problems in the Dr Seuss story who runs to Solla Sollew the place where there are no least very few... 

This life though is a place of struggles, difficulties and tests we will run from test to another but that doesn't mean that a new door opening wont bring about beneficial change in circumstances and experience... It just isn't guaranteed to be significantly better or different, it could be worse. 

Therefore it helps to prepare for what is on the other side of the door.


There is a large trend in public office, government, the judiciary, law enforcement, the new age movement and the wider public towards legalization of drugs and a soft approach on drug use or abuse.

This move has come after decades of mass manufacture of all sorts of drugs and a general failure to prevent drug dealing, addiction and drug related crime... It has been taken as a collective attribute of the human condition, with it's problems.

Many proponents of legalization state the problems with existing policy and promote the benefits of drug use or the move towards a more tolerant drug taking culture. This has gained popular support of course with the many drug users and addicts in society as well as some victims of drug use and crime who don't see way forward in existing policies and can't think of better alternatives.

This though does not mean better alternatives don't exist, on the macro and the micro level. On a philosophical level, we should ask why so many people in society want to escape their present reality by turning to drugs. 

Mass drug abuse points to deeper problems in the culture, ideology and foundations of a society and civilization, it points to problems in the social, economic, educational and cultural norms and systems of a society. On the level of the resultant crime and disorder stemming from drug addiction and other matters it points to political, judicial and law enforcement failings... it doesn't mean necessarily that the concept of prohibiting drug abuse is incorrect.

Once people jump on a bandwagon for a particular trend they will readily propagate a list of benefits... But they should consider all the harms that exist already in association with it, as well as those harms that are likely to arise with further facilitating it.