How do we know what is true?

[Delightful Life]

There have been, are and will forever be scientists taking LSD, Tryptamine, Cocaine, Caffeine, etc

Heck, the 'inventor' of LSD was a scientist :3

 

[ChemGal]

then how can you even say that if it's not scientifically proven, it's crap?

Where is this coming from?

 

[blackbelt1961]

By definition, that's what knowledge is -- what we don't know isn't knowledge, right? :3

lack of knowledge , is knowledge itself

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Where is this coming from?

Oh, I'm just mad at Chansen's wisecracks. He thinks I don't have a brain, I'm an idiot and I mindlessly follow snake oil salesman. I am advocating for - I know myself and what makes me feel better and I'd appreciate scientists not telling me that I have no right to feel better by way of something they haven't verified and that because they've got no report in a peer reviewed journal that they approve of.. I must not really feel better. That makes no sense.

 

[Delightful Life]

And the guy who came up with the double helix structure on acid?


I care and you should too, about how the people you meet 'experience' the world around them. Science is so bloody arrogant in that regard.


So if science can't know everything (I can't find a citation that was opinion) if you can admit that because our brains can only perceive with the human senses we have but have no way of perceiving beyond our dimensions - then how can you even say that if it's not scientifically proven, it's crap?

Again, science isn't a thing, but rather the collective, careful and hard won knowledge of humanity

Knowledge is so bloody arrogant in that regard
Knowledge can't know everything.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

If people want to take sugar pills, fine. What I take issue with are the principles behind homeopathic medicine and then how it is presented to patients. False claims are made. I've gone to the pharmacy with real problems and have had pharmacists recommend homeopathic remedies - that's an issue, especially when they aren't presented as such. When people go to a homeopath, how many think that the homeopathic remedies are like supplements, with natural, active ingredients? Often, it's not informed consent.

What if the pharmacist said " a lot of people find this helps. We don't know exactly why it helps them. But there are no known side effects because the active ingredients are so miniscule. " ? Would you be okay with that? Would that be informed consent enough? You see, for me, I'd be apt to try it...let's say, for cramps or something...because the over the counter drugs may help but they also have side effects I don't like - most drugs do, for me. Some more than others. So, I would actually appreciate his/ her suggestion based on anecdote from his/ her customers. Because the pharmacist could easily sell me a drug with side effects for about the same price. It makes no difference to them.

 

[Ichthys]

The only truth that exists is that that we will never be fully certain about anything.

I like to think of truth as an asymptote and we are the graph that can get very close to it, but it will never meet it. But, you know, that's fine because this is what makes life so special. If we knew the truth there would be nothing to it. You can live fine by having a rough model/idea of what might be the closest to the truth and live by those principles. Be it in science, philosophy, religion.

The danger lies in the ones who try to tell you they know the frontier. But, as I said before. What is and isn't true depends on the parameters and the approach that you use (religion, empiricism, rationalism, etc). The flaw in this is that the approach is human-made and thus most likely carries its own flaws and biases. The solution to finding the truth would be a holistic approach to cosmology trying to make a connection between philosophy, spirituality, biology, from the quarks to the galactic super clusters. Just thinking of attempting that makes me feel overwhelmed. It is beyond the scope of human reasoning unless we all started doing it today.

Our brain only allows us to interpret events based on a specific set of parameters. That's what it has evolved to do because that was sufficient. Making sense of the universe and its meaning was never on the plate.

In summary. I equate truth with meaning. Truth = Meaning. E.g. It's easy to explain the meaning of a TV in relation to a human. It's a means to transmit images that contain information that might or might be of our interest. But, if you go on a holistic approach, you could easily end up writing 20 books about what the TV MEANS in context of the whole cosmos. The physicist will have a lot to say about the electricity and the light emitted, the social scientist will have a lot to say about its social impact, philosophers, religious scholars, too. Unifying all of them would reveal the meaning, the absolute truth about the TV. We are not there yet and I doubt we ever will because the human mind cannot compute the interdisciplinary meaning from which we get the truth.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[blackbelt1961]

The only truth that exists is that that we will never be fully certain about anything.

.

i guess death is not a certainty for you


whats your secret ?

 

[Ichthys]

One more example. Let's take a school of thought:
Empiricism. In this case a fact is true. And every truth must be a fact. Truth = Fact.

But, this is only one of many ways to see the universe. Yes, it allowed us to land on the moon and keep us healthy. But, not all truths are facts. Whether something may be true or not depends on the question asked and as I said, the parameters on which all parties agree on. 1+1=2. That is the current truth. But, what if I invented an alternative math where 1+1=1? Assuming all parties believe in my parameters it would be true. Furthermore I could even logically convert between these two paradigms by saying in society A, the plus sign is to them what the multiplication sign is to us.

What's the weather in San Diego? About 80 F person A says. Person B says around 27 C. Both are true.
Truth is equal to meaning in that it is a brain construct that evolved as a necessity to make sense of our surroundings. But, no other than Einstein provided the evidence that just because we attempt to make sense of the universe using human logic, doesn't mean that the universe works according to human logic. Everything is relative and so is the truth in each of the human disciplines (religion, science, philosophy, cooking, etc). The only way to find the truth is when you unify all the viewpoints relative to each other to find the absolute viewpoint which is the truth.

But, that's just my opinion.

i guess death is not a certainty for you


whats your secret ?

Most certainly not. Just because our physical shells cease to function does not mean our souls died as well. Think of it this way. For every thing that there is, there is about 4x as much dark matter inside of it and surrounding it. You are mostly made of dark matter. Yet you can't see it, you can't interact with it. To the soul we are just a shell and to the dark matter we are just the core and if there are 11 dimensions in this universe, who am I to say that just because my 3-dimensional version of me died, I truly died? Maybe death is a wake up in a higher dimension, you might even call that dimension heaven.

 

[chansen]

I like that last one...

Scientific methodology has become the 'holy grail' . Has anyone considered there might be other methods of finding out truths? But of course, that concept itself will be rejected if scientific methodology is considered the one and only.

What do you think is as good as science? Put it to the test.

Things that are "beyond science" or similar are, traditionally, marketed by scammers. People who run financial scams will tell you their financial products baffle mathematicians. People who have gas savings scams say that they have outsmarted the auto industry. Scammers claim that they are above science, because science doesn't validate their claims. Ever see stuff like this?

You're on a website where a lot of gullible and stupid people hang out. People who are fearful of the government, science and scientists, etc. These people are targeted by scammers. They are easy to fool.

But worst of all, are people who say their medicine works, when there is nothing in it. That's reprehensible. The easy way to shut everyone up and move homeopathy into the mainstream, help many more people, and make much more money? Prove it.

And @chansen...what about the idea that our human brains can only, so far, think and percieve on human terms with human capacity?

I have no idea where you are going with this one.

And the Tylenol thing is very interesting. I didn't know that. What makes it better than the anecdotal evidence of those who've benefitted from homeopathy. I am sure you've used Tylenol and would say you benefitted. Why should I believe you?

Because randomized trials have been performed. Tylenol has been shown to be beneficial for pain relief. Homeopathic remedies have not. Now, that's not true - some trials do say that homeopathic remedies are effective. Know which ones? The ones with poor methodology that are funded by homeopathic remedy producers. "The European Network of Homeopathy Researchers" even published "An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys". Seriously. They only looked at studies that were "positive". Right there in the title. They ignored all other studies.

There's irony for you. A homeopathy group doing exactly what you're worried about big pharma doing: Designing their own studies and fabricating outcomes.

 

[blackbelt1961]

One more example. Let's take a school of thought:
Empiricism. In this case a fact is true. And every truth must be a fact. Truth = Fact.

ok lets put that to the test

fact: one day you will die its certain

fact : you wrote : The only truth that exists is that that we will never be fully certain about anything.

fact : your truth statement is false

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think what is clear is that Kimmio does not understand what science is. She does indeed discuss it like it's an entity, when it's really a process, and the accumulated knowledge gained through that process. It is the best way we have of increasing our body of knowledge. If I ask where the bible informed science of anything, does anyone have an answer?

As for the value of personal experience over science, it can be part of science. Tylenol, for example. We don't know exactly how Tylenol (acetaminophen) works. We just know it does. In study after study. It's not a placebo.

Science is the systematic generation of hypotheses, testing of those hypotheses, and observing the results to gather knowledge. Thankfully, science doesn't ask, "Is this solution popular?" Science doesn't care about popular. It also doesn't care if people are nice. As a process, it seeks the truth, whether the truth is popular and pleasant, or not.

Science goes off the rails when it seeks to come to a predetermined conclusion. When drug companies want their new drugs to achieve FDA approval, they are subject to stringent oversight, because they've been lying bastards in the past.

That's a reason to hate on drug companies - not science. Science done badly is not science. I think coming to a conclusion and then ignoring all evidence to the contrary is more like religion. You can argue with me on that point, but it's not science.

This science behind marketing does indeed ask "is this popular?" and then "how can we make it (more) popular?" and you have to question when the research into disease is being done, or funded, by the drug companies themselves. And that happens more often than not. Because who can afford a huge independent study? That's why naturopaths have so few...and if the makers of profittable natural health products funded their own big study, it's a good bet that big pharma's marketing hawks would be all over it, discrediting the study any which way the could with all the power and influence they could muster...and then they'd fund their own study and make drugs with natural ingredients and patent them and heavily market them. I believe that's how it works.

Naturopaths should look into crowd sourcing or something to fund independent studies.

 

[ChemGal]

What if the pharmacist said " a lot of people find this helps. We don't know exactly why it helps them. But there are no known side effects because the active ingredients are so miniscule. " ? Would you be okay with that? Would that be informed consent enough? You see, for me, I'd be apt to try it...let's say, for cramps or something...because the over the counter drugs may help but they also have side effects I don't like - most drugs do, for me. Some more than others. So, I would actually appreciate his/ her suggestion based on anecdote from his/ her customers. Because the pharmacist could easily sell me a drug with side effects for about the same price. It makes no difference to them.

In one of the situations I would have preferred they just said, we don't carry that, try a different pharmacy.
Homeopathic remedies still have side effects, so I wouldn't want them to say there are no known side effects. Along with a placebo effect comes the nocebo effect, and people can react to fillers or the non-active ingredients.

Ideally, I don't think homeopathic remedies should be in pharmacies, I would prefer to see the two separate. If the pharmacies do sell them, I would prefer the pharmacist to say something like this is a homeopathic remedy, it contains no active ingredients (if true, there have been cases were they have thrown things in and caused harm because the concentration wasn't controlled). There is no scientific basis for a mechanism of how this might work, but some people find they feel better when they take it.

 

[Delightful Life]

Interesting post chansen .... you posted:
"it's really a process, and the accumulated knowledge gained through that process........"
"Science done badly is not science. I think coming to a conclusion and then ignoring all evidence to the contrary is more like religion. You can argue with me on that point, but it's not science."
Just wondering here ...... would we not be better to treat spirituality as a process? Mendalla, Innawhimsey and Hermann, to name a few, can jump in here .....
If I may paraphrase for the sake of discussion.
Religion done badly is not spirituality. I think that coming to a conclusion based on interpretations of a particular book and ignoring all research to the contrary is religion. You can argue with me on that point but it's not spirituality.
Thoughts please??
Regards
Rita

Religion (in the belief in a supernatural g_d sense) really is a big problem because to exist it does so much violence to even fundamental laws of logic, so, to maintain belief in it people & organizations & states etc have created mechanisms that support that violence to the laws of reality that the believers have to follow. Humanity has been under that thrall for quite some time as a default position.

That written, there are other ways of approaching the g_d concept and religion that doesn't have to do this kind of violence to maintain the belief

That's what atheism etc is reacting against imho -- the groups and mechanisms that have been created to promote belief in a supernatural g_d

So those who don't believe in a supernatural g_d are all atheists :3

ATHEISTS UNITE!!!

All of this courtesy of RitaTG's Holy Spirit...I thank you, oh glittery wing'd one

(that written, i hope that humanity never stops being dangerous...as the great prophet darkwing duck says

 

[chansen]

And the guy who came up with the double helix structure on acid?

Some people come up with good hypotheses or compose good music while high. Those hypotheses are tested while sober.

I care and you should too, about how the people you meet 'experience' the world around them. Science is so bloody arrogant in that regard.

Again, no. Science just doesn't give a crap about your feelings. You would rather listen to people who sound very concerned and very sympathetic, then sell you sugar pills. In a way, you literally prefer answers that are sugar-coated, over ones that are validated.

So if science can't know everything (I can't find a citation that was opinion) if you can admit that because our brains can only perceive with the human senses we have but have no way of perceiving beyond our dimensions - then how can you even say that if it's not always scientifically proven, it's crap? Science can mitigate people making harmful decisions, sure, but it is not the holy grail, or the path to the holy grail, of everything we'll ever know.

I never said that. I will say that homeopathy is scientifically proven not to work, and that's why it's crap. Science just remains as the best method we have of determining what claims are true.

I'm really getting tired of you attributing things to me that I never said. I have repeatedly stated, on the old site, that "science is the best method we have" for increasing our body of knowledge. Repeatedly. Click on the link, then click on the Google results. Now find where I said that "if it's not scientifically proven, it's crap". Use whatever search string you need.

Or, just admit that you make s**t up.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Many times @chansen, and you might not agree - but we are prescribed medication based on anecdote - word of mouth - because the drug companies influence what the doctor reads about, learns about, and prescibes - they share stories about effectiveness at doctor parties and hospital staff rooms about patient success. They give you something, and wing it, guessing it might help because it has a high success rate, they've been told. They may have seen it help a few patients. But if the success rate is 95% they have no way of knowing really, until you take it (unless they know you're allergic to something in it) if it'll work or if you're in the unfortunate 5% group. And what really pisses me off is how easily a new prescription becomes a trend - and then how often a few years later it comes out that many people taking it have some serious side effect from it - but they don't listen to the patients' own trepidation or concerns in the first place - because they know best. That had happened to me too many times. I am tired of being told "almost everything has side effects you just have to live with them" or adding some other substance to mitigate it - and I actually would really like to explore less invasive, less controlling, means of maintaining good health by judging for myself how i feel. Call me crazy.

 

[chansen]

Many times @chansen, and you might not agree - but we are prescribed medication based on anecdote - word of mouth - because the drug companies influence what the doctor reads about, learns about, and prescibes - they share stories about effectiveness at doctor parties and hospital staff rooms about patient success. They give you something, and wing it, guessing it might help because it has a high success rate. But if the success rate is 95% they have no way of knowing really, until you take it (unless they know you're allergic to something in it) if it'll work or if you're in the unfortunate 5% group. And what really pisses me off is how easily a prescription becomes a trend - and then how often a few years later it comes out that many people taking it have some serious side effect from it - but they don't listen to the patients' own trepidation or concerns in the first place - because they know best. That had happened to me too many times. I am tired of being told "almost everything has side effects you just have to live with them" and I actually would really like to explore less invasive, less controlling, means of maintaining good health by judging for myself how i feel. Call me crazy.

That's not science. That's doctors doing their best to treat symptoms, and sometimes grasping at straws and overmedicating. I don't like how doctors do that, either, and I've written about that, too. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Another thing is...they screwed up big time with the over prescribing of antibiotics.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

That's not science. That's doctors doing their best to treat symptoms, and sometimes grasping at straws and overmedicating. I don't like how doctors do that, either, and I've written about that, too. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

It does because you say homeopathy and naturopaths do the same thing (naturopaths are a different profession though).

 

[Delightful Life]

"science is the best method we have" for increasing our body of knowledge.

Just a point of clarification: Are you really saying here 'the scientific method is the best method we have for increasing our body of knowledge'?