Can science explain everything?

[The Tall Man]

This is from the other thread but it’s struck me recently how you can view a lot of the. Current year woes just as well through a religious or supernatural type lens as you can through a scientific one and it’s just describing the same thing in different language. you can consider the Troon plague as a mind virus, a cultural contagion event, or wrote dry papers about ROGD and peer pressure and grooming or you can see it as a bunch of demons. One might sound a bit whacky if you’re not religious but it’s describing the same phenomenon.

You should consider that most of the people perpetuating social decay and contributing to the destruction of the West view the world through an Abrahamic lens. I am not just talking about the fact that the owners of Pornhub and OnlyFans are Rabbis or that many political leaders talk about the biblical context of our time, such as Bibi calling his war the 'war of the sons of light vs the sons of darkness.' Consider Trannies; many of them openly adopt the role of a Satanist or purposefully sin, which is still part of the Abrahamic framework.

There are very few people in the West who do not operate within this framework.

You can even find that thinking within science.

The Big Bang is a solution to a problem that comes from religion, not reality, and it was proposed by a Jesuit priest.

The problems are all created by people who work within this Abrahamic framework, which makes it less surprising that it turns out to align with scripture. These religious views have some explanatory power, but more in the sense of being the philosophical and metaphysical foundation of most problems.

 

[PermaLurker69]

What you don't know will always be greater than what you do know. What is an answer is just another question to the inner workings of the universe and reality, it never ends. It's why the human imagination is far more important than the data (science) as to be able to continue providing questions.

The fact humans must ask questions and figure out through trial and error is flawed, the answer can never be perfect that way because its guessing how things work and aproximating answers. The data so far collected is flawed since there is no answer to every question, so that will also remain flawed.

Either way you define science, it will always be flawed but it needs to be flawed to exist to begin with.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

The theistic perspective declares absolute revealed infallible knowledge from the start. There is the potential that this guess may be correct, but the success rate is rather low. The theistic perspective does not entertain other theories, and suppresses them in both peaceful and violent ways

This is going to sound weird, but my wife is religious, AND she knows what planets and stuff are.

Also, I’m not aware of which part of the Bible says HOW God created anything, just that he did and it took him a week.

 

[Shidoen]

In the same vein that we cannot fully understand god or divinity, we cannot understand all of science. We still learn more and more through science everyday so we cannot have it fully explain everything.

 

[Karen of Human Resources]

@SpergioLeonne

Most people probably have a hybrid of these two states on a spectrum in the west. There are atheists who don't question cultural dogmas, as well as believers who are willing to reconsider articles of faith. It comes more down to tools.

The "belief" claims knowledge without subjecting it to testing. Some people will refuse facts that conflict with their beliefs, and there are some who will discard their beliefs in favor of facts (despite the belief claiming to be always correct).

The scientific process starts from ignorance, and slowly develops a body of knowledge. One is well suited to developing lines of thought, the other places arbitrary confines on it.

Your wife has on some level accepted part of the scientific method, and looks to it for solutions. It may be a question of how far it gets used. There are individuals who don't think twice about using day to day conveniences, but then recoil and refuse to use it when discussing the true age of the earth.

I can't say to what degree but on the most basic level free application of sciences brought humans to the moon. Free unrestricted application of theology brought humans to the middle ages.

 

[Muttley]

The theistic perspective declares absolute revealed infallible knowledge from the start.

then why does my Bible contain multiple, often blatantly conflicting sources, side by side?

it's almost like whoever put the Bible together, was working with what sources they had, and tried to include as much information as possible.
this is a big assertion that falls apart upon very basic inspection.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

Your wife has on some level accepted part of the scientific method, and looks to it for solutions. It may be a question of how far it gets used. There are individuals who don't think twice about using day to day conveniences, but then recoil and refuse to use it when discussing the true age of the earth.

I’m just asking you to examine your prejudice.

It’s wildly inappropriate for you to say my wife has “on some level, accepted the scientific method,” because you don’t know to what degree church dogma has interfered with anyone’s acceptance of “science.” The church most often simply reflected common, popular beliefs. There are rare cases where certain individuals were retaliated against, but those are best understood as personal and political.

I’m confident that my wife knows more about human reproductive biology off the top of her head than maybe anyone in this thread who isn’t @Otterly .

I know people love to assert mythologies like the church constantly suppressed science because it felt threatened by it, but for fucks’ sake, Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was an abbot and a friar. Copernicus, credited with the heliocentric model of the solar system, was a Catholic Canon. Louis Pasteur, a father of germ theory, was Catholic. Marie Curie, the first woman to win a Nobel prize and a pioneering researcher on the subject of radioactivity, was Catholic.

What are you? Smart because you’re an atheist? Read the fucking thread. Being an atheist doesn’t make you smart, only dumb people fall for that

And what the fuck is up with these people who come in here to copy and paste some high school essay, and then make these condescending, tone deaf replies that fail to process any of the ideas in the message they’re replying to? How are you so bad at English?

Sorry for going off like this, but it keeps happening. Like if someone writes in common dialect and asks a rhetorical question, they (me) are treated like a retard. It’s getting under my skin.

Editing and adding:
I put scare quotes around science in the top of my message because what is or isn’t science is increasingly a wedge issue when subjects intersect with politics.

As a species-wide problem, we have failed to contain our biases, and now there are exploitable cracks that have been accepted into the modern canon of many disciplines under the umbrella of science. It’s excessively laborious to go through what IS and IS NOT legitimate science and the standard of qualifiable vs quantifiable is broken.

If someone says “settled science,” they are a charlatan, because you can always ask more questions, nothing is ever beyond questioning. “Settled science” refers to a dogma dressed as science, and that term should be avoided.

But in all, my scare quotes were to indicate that to determine what is a belief and what is a fact requires individual examination and can’t share the determination among an entire group of statements. Each one needs to be tested.

 

[Otterly]

Even if science can explain everything, we can't understand everything.

That’s a good point, and I am very sure I remember one old lecturer asking us ‘can the brain understand itself?’

Even if that wasn't the case, the human mind can only hold so much:

Also true. At least it is at this point in time. In the past, there was a point where one person could have assimilated ‘all the knowledge’ and that’s again an interesting thought. In the future maybe we will merge with some kind of AI augmentation and we will again be capable of holding a vast knowledge within an individual

They may both talk about the same phenomena; but one has the potential to understand. The other can never understand.

I’m actually not sure about that. I’m going back to my question about consciousness here. What is consciousness? How does it a raise or happen? We’ve been asking this for millennia, and nobody can even really decide on a definition for what consciousness actually IS, never mind say how it happens.
What does it mean to understand consciousness? Or love? I don’t think a scientific explanation of love is very satisfying. Yes it’s a hormonal whatever to bind us which increases fitness but that’s a very dry definition isn’t it? One understands love in a spiritual sense, not a rational sense.
Or troonism. We can talk drily about rapid onset dysphoria and cultural contagion, but the longer I look at what’s happening in the world I think that for me, it simply seems like something very nasty has crawled into the world and people are dancing around it like moths worshipping a flame.

I’ve been a scientist for a while now, and when I was young I was very confident that science could explain everything, we just needed the right questions to ask and some more knowledge. But the older I get the more I realise I know absolutely nothing, and accept the possibilities that perhaps there are things so far outside the current framework that we will never know them scientifically. And also that there are some things that are better understood, for want of a better word, spiritually.
I wasn’t brought up in a particularly religious household either. That’s a conclusion I’ve reached myself

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Ive seen a few articles lately about the world being a simulation. I don’t really understand the rationale the article used, I’m not a physicist and it’s out of my league. But what struck me was again the absolute lack of any kind of introspection. So you think you’ve got proof the world is a simulation? But no discussion of the fact this is effectively saying it was created and thus must have a creator?

I've always hated claims like that without explanation from scientist but this shows the political bias forming in science sectors. Similar to "God can't exist." "Why?" "No evidence." on the other hand "Aliens beyond single cell organisms and small trogs must exist!" "Why?" "Well there's ton's of planets and space so even if no evidence it must be true." Beyond parody when scientist don't realize their own clouded bias.


The world is a simulation claim strikes me similar to "Dark matter must do X" claims and some of those are currently being found to be wrong.

But I will say this, in my younger days I used to be one of those "science explains everything!" types, that was until I began experiencing weird supernatural experiences myself. Coming across people with abnormal "abilities." (Some I've mentioned on this very site: And just an example of known people outside my experiences: Like the girl who has seemingly X-ray vision) that defy explanation and I think that's what really made Socrates' whole world view of not understanding anything or being humble to that fact finally sunk in.

Even then what a lot of people forget some things considered supernatural may not be if given an explanation via science. Assuming the explanation in such supernatural event was accurate. It also forgets to examine our government for years has looked into similar supernatural occurrences such as remote viewing, prophetic vision, etc. People like to mention that those projects were canceled but we don't know if they are still running underground and the cancelation was merely pretense to dissuade the public from believing such a thing. It's even easier because science is politicized of what is considered popular it could also be argued science is hiding some facts from the public for political reasons too.

It's just nobody likes to admit their reality is wrong, or the things they've came to believe intiially are malformed or incorrect, because it forces a reality break on their mind. Let's look at this site, how many people realize conspiracies are going on, and why do normies exist in such a automated mind set, why dopeople on sites such as this have the ability to go beyond those beliefs or understand above the automatons, or "induhviduals" as termed by Scott Adams? *Note: Yes some conspiracies are bull, some claims on these sites are lies or clout, but I'm talking about good faith claims and experiences that go beyond the normal or what we adhere to as true.

There's a lot of unexplained questions even disregarding supernatural concepts that really make one thunk hard about how far they are willing to limit their understanding of this world or reality itself. It's also why I think those who only reference the empirical and evidence are doing themselves a great disservice to their own intelligence. Some things can not be viewed, some things can not be explained, and whether supernatural or not far expand upon what they are able to perceive or understand.

Hate to go on large tangent but something always on my mind seeing topics like these.

 

[Otterly]

Coming across people with abnormal "abilities." (Some I've mentioned on this very site:

Would you mind linking to that?

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Would you mind linking to that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Demkina-X ray vision girl. Just one example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McMoneagle- US Army operator of supernatural (psychic abilities: Remote viewing for instance)


Note: Although she didn't have perfect results quite a few times they were significant statistically to be more than just a fluke.

Just some examples. I'll repost some of my personal experiences with such people another day when I'm less busy (people who don't have a wiki) or any information on them out in the public.

 

[Thomas Talus]

There are only two types of people who believe science is anything more than a name given to our ability to understand the world around us; the first are religious fundamentalists who see everything through the lens of dogma and so perceive science as another competing religion. The other type are pseudointellectual cargo cultists who see science as a magic button to press that makes them look smarter, who lend credence to the idea of science as religion.

Unfortunately there are a lot of the latter who still managed to wrangle themselves a Ph.D.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

no. it will try, but at the end of the day, the human mind has limits

can you make a pixar movie in an IBM from the 70s? Can you get an original NES to run skyrim?

there are somethings humanity wasnt meant to understand or access, and they never will, largely because its not important. science isnt important, its an ego stroking corporate fuck fest largely used to oppress people

people will always look to science to answers, but nothing will be able to fill the whole in their minds and hearts

then why does my Bible contain multiple, often blatantly conflicting sources, side by side?

it doesnt.

 

[PermaLurker69]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/LknvBo4BPEg/

alternative hypothesis may be autistic but this video has been neat.

It is important to also ask a slight inverse of OP's question. Do we need science to answer everything? A person would be no different than a machine if they wait for calculations before performing any action or thought.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Minor PL but I was given painkillers years ago (tramadol in one instance, vicodin in another) and... well, they're part of the reason I question stuff.

A small percentage of the population has an opiate intolerance, which results in opiates either not working (or working poorly), or the person taking them to experiencing similar symptoms to your own. It's rare, but not unknown.

 

[The Tall Man]

But I will say this, in my younger days I used to be one of those "science explains everything!" types, that was until I began experiencing weird supernatural experiences myself. Coming across people with abnormal "abilities." (Some I've mentioned on this very site: And just an example of known people outside my experiences: Like the girl who has seemingly X-ray vision) that defy explanation and I think that's what really made Socrates' whole world view of not understanding anything or being humble to that fact finally sunk in.

Assuming this to be true, why wouldn't you be able to rationally explain this?

You are conflating a particle cultist that thinks reality is a bunch of tiny steel marbles and everything is just an expression of their travel towards entropy, with a person practicing science who is trying to rationally explain phenomena observed in nature.

There is no reason to think you could not find a rational explanation for many phenomena far removed from the particle marble model.

 

[draggs]

Science can't explain reality in the first planck instant (10^-43 seconds) after the Big Bang. The laws of physics that we know do not accurately describe the conditions of that first planck instant

It's possible that the laws of physics that have governed reality ever since self-organized in that instant (or were created dot dot dot)

 

[Muttley]

it doesnt.

the OT is compromised primarily of 4 different sources
and often times the two or more different accounts are in the same book, right next to each other

you never wondered why it repeats itself up to 4 times and each time it will record the same account, say of a battle, but with different numbers given regarding the details of the battle or something analogous?

 

[Unsane]

Science is the cosmic game of chase. The creator of chaos prefers educating mankind by the carrot and stick approach even though perfection of science is an unachievable goal.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

the OT is compromised primarily of 4 different sources

But the sources aren't actually different. The texts are generally the same, with some grammatical changes

and often times the two or more different accounts are in the same book, right next to each other

Right. But not contradictory ones

you never wondered why it repeats itself up to 4 times and each time it will record the same account, say of a battle, but with different numbers given regarding the details of the battle or something analogous?

It doesn't