pull down to refresh
11 sats \ 40 replies \ @didiplaywell 24 Oct \ parent \ on: Do you believe humans can have psychic abilities? spirituality
As per his own account on how he transitioned. Read his story, it's worth it.
But he did however, for his initial views were inspired by religion, though dwelled in mysticism for nothing it had to do with his religion. That connection is what he was looking for and he failed, causing him to snap back to reality.
We agree, but we can only discuss what we take for certain in an agreed frame. Otherwise words are meaningless and purposeless.
I woke up long before getting introduced into science, when I was a little kid. Nothing prompted me, it just stopped making sense by itself. So I started to look for sense, and I found salvation in science, then it became my religion.
That's another point I want to make. There being a story doesn't make anything true. That is why I quoted a man at a bus stop. I respect your views. It's just a different journey than mine. To me science as an art is beautiful. Science as a religion is dangerous.
reply
That is why I quoted a man at a bus stop.
Whose story is unverifiable and thus can't be taken as true.
Science as a religion is dangerous
So far denying science has caused and causes more suffering than the opposite. That's specially true when politicians deny economic science. I can speak from experience on that.
reply
Trust the science right? How about covid "science"? I agree that pure real science is awesome. But I don't see it out there much. I see studies that are bought and paid for.
reply
I see studies that are bought and paid for.
Science haves all the tools needed to check itself. In that case, it's a check for consistency based in game theory, where a simple check on incentives immediately lead to doubt whatever affirmation have been made. Resistance to peer-review is a usual confirmation of said doubts.
The strongest point is that, paid or not, science assumes a study can be simply wrong, which is even more usual than paid-for biased studies. At no point science claim that if you see a study you must assume it true. It actually claims the exact opposite: don't trust, verify.
reply
Is it really all that simple to check for incentives?
reply
Specially when money is involved, yes.
reply
Science is used to manipulate the masses. Real truth must come from within.
reply
As long as it keeps manipulating cars, computers and airplanes into keeping working, be my guest.
reply
A functioning machine has nothing to do with truth. You think a self driving car will ever be better than a skilled intuitive human operating a vehicle? Assuming Elon ever actually makes it happen.
reply
A functioning machine has nothing to do with truth
You lost me there. Or did you meant something else?
Again..I love the idea of pure science. Good luck showing me an example.
reply
Of what?
reply
Pure science. It's all a story. You read a paper. And trust someone else. You said yourself, look at the incentives. But you and I can't agree on what the incentives of Elon would be. It's not simple the way you described.
reply
Pure science.
An example of pure science? You are using one right now at your fingertips.
Whose story is unverifiable and thus can't be taken as true.
💯
I love science. But it's not all there is in my view.
reply
Science do not claims otherwise.
reply
But this all started with you telling me tuning extra senses is a waste of energy right?
reply
tuning extra senses is a waste of energy right?
No, I meant that the method ("psychism") to tune extra senses is debased, and that science allows for exactly that, but with actual results.
reply
Words are just words. You said you believe in intuition. You just call it something "scientific"
reply
Because it is.
I have plenty of results. Are you denying my own personal experience again?
reply
I'm not, and never did.
We could make an epic podcast
reply
That would be interesting
reply