Well dah! No it does not make it weak, unless you inappropriately compare it to a hopelessly misguided comfort-seeking sense of absolute certainty that is only ever entertained by fools.

• In our belief systems, the nearest we have to 'a very solid absolute' is the mere assumption that some kind of reality exists.
  
• Everything else can be, and should be, open to doubt.
• ALL human attempts to model reality (including science) are speculative and based on inference.
• None of our beliefs equate to 'very solid absolutes', and they never could!
• Believing that one is 'in touch with' any kind of 'absolute truth' is a sure sign of delusion.
• Science recognises that it is 'only modelling' reality and is always doing so imperfectly.
• A 'model of' reality is NOT reality, nor could it ever be. (a brilliant map is not the territory that it maps)
  
• That recognition of fallibility is a major strength of science - not a weakness.
• It is a strength that many other arrogant belief systems fail to share or appreciate.

Maybe we could add two related entries to the thesaurus to illustrate the point...
"A wise person" - thrives on questions that they don't know how to answer.
"A moron" - thrives on answers that they don't know how to question.

 

Last edited: Jan 1, 2020

Well dah! No it does not make it weak, unless you inappropriately compare it to a hopelessly misguided comfort-seeking sense of absolute certainty that is only ever entertained by fools.
Well, I agree with you but science disagrees with you, and I was being lectured above about how scientific theories are not working ideas but facts, solid absolutes. You don't have to look further than Wikipedia to find a definition of scientific theory that is as close as you can get to theories in science being accepted as fact: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable (i.e. accepted as most likely to be facts) accounts of the real world.

• In our belief systems, the nearest we have to 'a very solid absolute' is the mere assumption that some kind of reality exists. Well I agree, there is really no such thing as a solid absolute, but scientists think otherwise.

• Everything else can be, and should be, open to doubt. I agree.
  
• ALL human attempts to model reality (including science) are speculative and based on inference. No, not all. Quantum physicists have for 40 years now had to accept that atoms appear in one place when observed only - we essentially create our own reality. When not observed, atoms are in a state of 'superposition' or 'potentiality', they occupy all space at the same time. Because they don't why this is, they are still in a state of shock and confusion. Spirituality in general (this is not religion or belief systems) have explanations for the nature of reality that are thousands of years old and say the same as the quantum physics discoveries. Now that is compelling!

• None of our beliefs equate to 'very solid absolutes', and they never could! Absolutely! But the scientists disagree with us... you see they have THEORIES which, according to them, are as close to being FACT as you could get.
  
• Believing that one is 'in touch with' any kind of 'absolute truth' is a sure sign of delusion. Yes of course, but the scientists.. There are no absolute truths, we only have popular opinions.
  
• Science recognises that it is 'only modelling' reality and is always doing so imperfectly. I wish. But the opposite is true. Look at their THEORIES, the scientists use their THEORIES as proven, irrefutable facts.
  
• A 'model of' reality is NOT reality, nor could it ever be. (a brilliant map is not the territory that it maps) Oh yes, “Ceci n'est pas une pipe” This is not a pipe, it's only a painting of a pipe, very funny from the Frenchman lol.
  
• That recognition of fallibility is a major strength of science - not a weakness. Science is a major Illuminati experiment, just as communism was an Illuminati experiment, based on Marx who worked for them.
  
• It is a strength that many other arrogant belief systems fail to share or appreciate. Belief systems are arrogant to think that this or that religion has the only Truth, yes. But recognise that science is also a belief system!

Maybe we could add two related entries to the thesaurus to illustrate the point...
"A wise person" - thrives on questions that they don't know how to answer. Indeed. The first axiom of science is 'I don't know'. But the majority of scientists don't preactice this and blindly enter science accepting those theories because they want to keep thier job and keep getting their grants renewed
"A moron" - thrives on answers that they don't know how to question. A perfect description of a modern scientist.

 

whew so many to ignore and so little time to devote to it......clik

 

If science is another type of religion.
Can you please list out all the examples of religions equivilent of sciences computer system, modern cell phone , modern rockets , modern communication systems, refrigerator. Etc.
The device you are using right now to type your comments .
If religion are capable of " Fruit" .
( Since science is another type of religion.)
Please list out equivilent fruit by other religions besides science .
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter my kind friend .
I appreciate you being here.

 

Thankful,

I'm curious about an aspect of your specific human experiance .

Do you navigate your experiance differentiating
Fantasy from reality ?
( What I mean is say you have a thought step1 or a feeling do you then follow some process to see if it is real or fake?)
( I ask because human beings have a potential for any given idea or thought to be right or wrong )
If you do have some type of process for differentiating reality from fantasy.
How does that process look compared to science in society developing an idea then building a computer or refrigerator or the cellphone's we use , tv, radio, recording studios etc.
Those fruit initially started out as mathematics and concepts that when tested showed to work with the real world so much so we could invent devices as powerful as what you use to type these comments right now .
So I'm wondering , do you believe that this process of using mathematics and science testing and then building real devices , is that more or less validating than say a idea that cannot produce any fruit ?

What I'm asking is if you could use a similar process in every area of life , would you ? ( As opposed to a process instead that never leads to impacting reality in any way )
For myself ,what I find is that ways of thinking or doing that cannot accomplish the same results as the ways of thinking and doing which lead to the fruit of tech and building all our devices. Are worth much less to me. Whenever I find them in my experience I get rid of them ( I shortcut these things to a word
"Misunderstanding". And things that lead to accomplishing like building devices I shortcut to
"Understanding ".
The reason I am asking all this is because
How could you classify " science"
As a religion when it can accomplish things which no religion can no matter how how they try?
By grouping science in with religion you are making the other religions so obsolete that they have no value at all. I believe if you don't want religions to be refuted and obsolete what you have to do is come up with a way to look at all their failures and weaknesses as being acceptable.( We can do this by having religion is different category than a scientific equation which fails at what it attempts to accomplish (
So say we think of religion as ART and literature .
A cultural category dealing with human expression ( ART) this way no matter how they get demonstrably wrong and incorrect ( say a human soul )
Since reality shows a soul to be impossible in reality
We can say a " soul" is instead a type of poetry which you can continue change the meaning of as science shows in more and more detail and depth that a afterlife is improbable, impossible , implausable.
If you make all religions with their lists of millions of lies and deception's , an art then it's alright and acceptable to say for example.
( That your God took human form than was nailed to an apple tree 15 minutes later ( that this God in human form did not have the capacity to deceive Roman guards of a low IQ ( in a age with no finger prints .) See it's alright that it does not make sense in a literal way its poetry and art . You can spin it like that man God died on purpose .
See science is in a different category .
( And you want it to be unless you want religions to be refuted and laughed at .)

 

Last edited: Jan 1, 2020

The theory of radio as I said earlier was accepted as being fact that Marconi invented radio. As was shown later, Tesla invented it. Fact is BS now to many because it can be disputed.
It is what is accepted as being true 'at that point in time.' It changes. The sun will rise and set tomorrow. This is accepted as being true. However, if the earth's suns changes it's trajectory or explodes this ceases to be fact.

Fact is the word you should be looking at. The dictionaries when I grew up which is likely much earlier than a large proportion of people here, stated clearly that theory was based on what was documented as fact. Facts change, theories change. A hypothesis does not need fact to be proposed. Theory was designed to be something that could not be disproved through lack of corroborating evidence hence E=MC2. However, as time has shown even the most solid evidence, fact and supporting documentation can have flaws.
Urban English, the acceptance of a Thesaurus where it was previously not accepted and words that were not even valid as slang and profanities into dictionaries also changed many things.

 

Interesting reading. Let me bring you up to speed about the meanings of belief system. Yes it can mean religion, and it can also mean world view or philosophical view. I would say that even politics is a belief system when those who are completely possessed with ways of thinking which they believe everyone should 'see' as the only way to a more prosperous life, a way out of poverty, a way to better public protection and so on make up an obsessive world view. The second definition of belief system, world view or philosophical view seems to me to be the best fit for both religion or philosophical/world view. Religion is an emotive word meaning a link back to God. So if you broaden your understanding of belief system you can see that I am not implying that science is a religion. I'm not saying that science has no value at all. Far from it. But it should be used as what is truly is, a guide, inspiration for those interested to experiment further. If something works because of science, great, if not, the possibility would exist that either you or the science is wrong.

You talk about reality proving that there is no soul. We cannot see, hear or feel radio waves, x-rays, ultra-violet light yet they exist all around us. What version of reality can explain that? Many people now believe that thoughts exist as energy, tangible not imaginery. YouTube views now run into the millions (collectively) on subjects like chanelling alien entities, body energy centre healing (Chakras), remote viewing, healing with colours and healing with sound frequencies, and even fascinating theories about Stonehenge and the pyramid stones being raised into position using sound frequencies. All this is the new science now dawning. Happy New Year.

 

This is the easiest philosophy behind theory:

Masters or innovators practice or invent sth and later, people who call themselves theorists, study their practices and codify and convert them into more concrete disciplines called theory. Then we (as inexperienced budding freshwaters) study those theories and try to imitate the masters' practices.






So why do we need to imitate them? It's so easy, because we are not new masters or innovators (and probably never will be one). If we luck out and be one, then another theorist would be found and dedicate one of his book's chapters to our practices.

And this process goes on and on and on ..........

 

You didn't address the content of my comment in any way.
In your previous comment you explicitly spoke about science being a religion . Now you say something different .
You talk about the phrase belief system
Yet I had assumed we had already penetrated that and went deeper when I specifically asked you about the differentiation of reality and fantasy .
Finally you go on to say that if you watch YouTube videos ( with millions of views that parts important ) on channeling alien entities and chakras remote viewing etc. That because you have watched a video on these topics ( with millions of views don't forget ) that it's a new science. Lololololololol

Please my friend , let's examine your remote viewing abilities right now
I am holding my social security card in my hand .
Concentrate with your soul and tell me the numbers .--- --- ----
Once we have a person that can do this .
Then I will be willing to further talk about your " new science" of remote viewing .
Those topics of invisible alien souls and remote viewing are Fake B. It's conjob stuff meng.
You didn't know that was B.S. ( bad science)?
It just seems like you are new to these whole topics.
You have not yet developed critical thinking .
If remote viewing was possible don't you think human beings could go 2 days without misunderstanding their wife or husband of 30 years?
The real world requires "learning"
Not assuming.
The only belief system you need
Is a process of differentiating between what is fiction and what is real on every scale of existence.
If you can do that your operating higher than bigfoot and bodiless alien energies my nicca.
If you investigate history , what type of reality you find is learning of information is required to have it .
Information cannot be invented in imagination.
We stand on the shoulders of giants .
No cave men had dreams of the Intel Pentium processor logo and Drew it on walls homeslice.

You cannot use chakaras or trakaloopis dots ( my own invention 1 sec ago )
To understand how things work just in pure imagination.
There is reality (( way things works ))
And there is fantasy (( making things up ))

I can sit here and invent fake things right now
Watch.
There is a being named
Yahtrakifadrip
Which lives in the ultra- natural realm.
Yahtrakifadrip
Created the super natural realm and the mega natural realms .
This is who created all that isn't and all that is.

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2020

Is Music theory ( how music works) worth learning in your opinion?

The topic sub-question core I believe?

It always amazes me how many intelligent people post comments. There are a lot here, even those that do not agree, completely disagree or have an axe to grind for whatever reason?

The most intelligent people I know when they see a thread posted on other sites and do not like or disagree do two things:
1. They acknowledge that the thread ownership is the author's and ultimately, the site it resides on, and,
2. Because they do not agree and it is not life-altering for them, they tend to click 'NEXT' and go to a thread that is more useful.

As you all were.

 

No that is NOT compelling; that is someone (i.e., you) demonstrating very convincingly, that you know almost nothing about Quantum Theory, and that you have just hijacked your own personal straw man version what science says about quantum theory, in order to support your loony toon fantasies about woo woo new age caricatures of reality.

The other slightly disturbing thing that comes across so strongly in your responses is your visceral contempt for scientists.
You offer several, almost begrudging, acknowledgements that science achieves so much, but then there's always your extra barb about how scientists are arrogantly claiming to be absolutely right. Of course, 'some scientists' are that stupid, but its far more useful to explore what 'science' is about, rather than harp on about the failings of 'scientists'. Scientists are human, they deliver human failings just like all humans, but what makes the collective enterprise of science so strong is its built-in self-correcting methodology. We can always observe science failures in local time, but over time science keeps on making progress in building better models of reality. If you took the time to actually study philosophy of science, instead of just making ignorant accusations against scientists, you would find that 'science' (not 'scientists') does not claim to expose reality itself, it just builds increasingly impressive models of that reality.

I had previously been giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping you could do better than being a woo woo new age crackpot. Now I know better.
Perhaps you weren't just recommending Rupert Sheldrake, perhaps you are Rupert Sheldrake.
Either way, anyone who can actually believe the total bollox in the above quoted paragraph, has, in my eyes, just willingly thrown away all credibility.
You should book your flight to the Andromeda Galaxy and go watch Elvis performing at the cosmic casino.

Or (far more seriously) you should earnestly start exploring cognitive biases (the stuff all our minds are constructed from).
All the usual suspects will be worth exploring (confirmation bias, etc) but given what you've written here, I suggest you pay particular attention to those cognitive biases which are fuelled by insecurities.

I can 'absolutely honestly' say that if I ever found myself being gullible enough to believe the woo woo garbage you quoted above, or even worse, if I ever found myself being so misguided as to 'want to' believe in woo woo garbage, then it would be time to 'drop everything' and sort out my mental health.

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2020

I don't get the tendencies to derail from music toward abstract philosophies. Believe me, philosophy can not help any of us to raise music knowledge if it's the first priority.

Non of the biggest musicians or composers has been well-known philosophers. The most pressing matter for them has been music and thinking particularly about the music most of the time.

If you have other opinions, highly respected.

 

I agree 100%
But I think the digressions are still interesting in their own right.
And I had to offer a (very flimsy) justification, I would say...
"technically, this is not a 'how to make music' thread; it's about philosophy of music theory"
and
"how can we talk about philosophy of music theory" if we haven't figured what we mean by 'philosophy' of anything."

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2020

Thankful
Here is an entry level explanation why your description of quantum mechanics is B. s. ( Bad science
Please watch this video in full.

 

"Is Music theory ( how music works) worth learning in your opinion?"
Music theory is mostly not how music works! It's a collection of rules, how music could work.
There are too many different doctrines.
Music is a very emotional thing, you can't put it in rules. Music isn't an empirical science!

The comparison between language and music is not possible.
Example:
You cannot explain to a native, who has never seen a truck befor, what a truck is, but you can exlain with text and/or words/language!

p.s.: I think music theory is a very importat thing, to master your craft (I have studied music).

 

As an attempt at delivering a very subtle topic to a non-scientist audience,
that video is magnificent, in many obvious and many non-obvious ways.

But I also confess...
She had me with her line about "wiggling in the back row of the cinema"

 

I am not disagreeing with you, but you do realize that the word 'Strawman' has two meanings??
I am sure with your intelligence you do and that you are using it in the 'unsubstantiated' meaning and not the deprecating one.

I am only saying this because I have seen someone else use this on another thread where the majority are actually professional musicians and they were completely misinterpreted and it got REALLY ugly.

Everyone has gone so far off-topic it is almost funny.

 

In order to avoid such ambiguities, I have previously provided a non-controversial interpretation of 'Straw man'.
This is how I use the term...

Want an example?

i.e., The overt attack is "Scientists are misusing theories as proven irrefutable facts" (and I suspect it goes further and implies that scientists are being misguided and arrogant on the basis of believing their theories are equivalent to proven irrefutable facts).
Straw man - because science quite simply does not believe in proven irrefutable facts, yet alone equating theories to those mythical entities. So, to accuse science of that 'easier to attack' error is either ignorant or disingenuous (or both).
Fallacious 'Strawman' arguments are so easy to spot and so easy to discredit, it's astonishing and embarrassing to see anyone bothering to 'try to get away with them'.

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2020